One book. Many regimes. One continuous proof.

The problem

A custodian active in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Abu Dhabi runs three separate attestations over the same books under FINMA, MiCA, and ADGM FSRA. Costs grow with the number of regimes; overlap reconciliation grows with entity pairs that share pools, clients, or treasury.

We identify five gaps: (1) attestation cost multiplies with regimes; (2) nothing is attested between snapshots, so assets can be borrowed for the photograph; (3) valid snapshots prove a sum, not that assets available at each redemption horizon cover liabilities callable then; (4) the same artifact over-reveals to banking partners and under-reveals to supervisors; (5) when coverage fails, there is no shared breach definition, tolerance, or escalation path.

What we propose

OPSIS — On-going Proof of Solvency and Institutional Standing — is a continuous attestation protocol that:

1. maps books into a single classified obligations state;
2. commits every transition, making inter-snapshot borrowing visible;
3. defines mobility classes so assets cover callable liabilities accounting for haircuts and delays;
4. lets each reader derive only their permitted predicate, preserving privacy;
5. defines a breach taxonomy, tolerances, and escalation.

One classified obligations state, read many ways. The client checks inclusion. The banking partner checks coverage. The supervisor reads its slice. Sibling entities become derivations from the same proven state — that is where analytical models project attestation cost to invert.

What is new

Privacy for proof of liabilities was solved in 2015 and never deployed at regulated scale: no assurance criteria, no breach rules, no multi-jurisdiction economics, no continuity between snapshots. We contribute the coverage ladder, regime profiles, disclosure governance inside the attested object, an adversary model, analytical cost models, and a post-quantum design constraint fixed at genesis — because a proof archive, unlike a signature archive, would have to be rebuilt wholesale under a stronger assumption.

Stage

Delivered at harness level: the ladder, basic tolerances, regime profiles, and analytical cost models. Target prover family: transparent hash-based (STARK-class); current harness: classical simulator + mock fold. Flat verification is definitional under folding (P2), not measured on folded histories. Full proofs, audience derivation, per-transition validity, and the post-quantum construction are target.

Who this is for

What we will not claim

Coverage of liabilities by reserves rests on a custodian signature over attested balances — never proven assets. Completeness is oracle-relative. Cross-operator overlap sits outside any single-operator proof. No supervisor has accepted zero-knowledge attestation for a reporting obligation. A certificate is evidence feeding the buyer’s obligations; it is not discharge of AML or safeguarding duty.

Analytical models (constraint_model.py, performance_model.py) predict continuous attestation cheaper than snapshot rebuild below 3.0–4.7% churn per epoch (0.21–0.37× at 1% churn), with verification analytical/definitional under folding; not measured on folded histories. Empirical confirmation is a later-stage target. Full proofs, audience derivation, and post-quantum construction are target.