Creator of ERC-3643 aka the T-REX Protocol 🦖 CTO @trex_network Chairman @ERC3643Org CBO @TokenySolutions Head of Blockchain @ApexGlobalGroup
earth
Joined March 2017
- Tweets6K
- Following705
- Followers2.9K
- Likes13.5K
Pinned Tweet
You may have heard about ERC-3643, the standard used by many financial institutions, banks and tradFi actors to represent RWA onchain, but what is it exactly? A thread 🧵
Anyone can tokenize a bond.
The real challenge? Making it compliant across chains without rebuilding everything.
One asset. One source of truth. ERC-3643 compliance. @chainlink interoperability. Now aligned with @swiftcommunity standards.
This is how we bring capital markets onchain. 🦖
@ApexGlobalGroup, @Chainlink, @ERC3643Org and T-REX Network have implemented a modular compliance framework for onchain bonds, aligned with Swift standards.
Assets are deployed once and managed from a single source of record on the T-REX Network, then distributed across chains.
Read the full announcement below:
If ECDSA breaks, every key using it is exposed at once. On most chains that also means every account, because the key is the account. That’s why the advice is to migrate everything, and that’s the part worth questioning.
Account abstraction already offers a way out. If the account is a contract and keys are only signers authorised on it, replacing a key is routine. The address, its history and everything attached to it stay put.
ERC-7913 goes a step further: an account can accept any signature scheme that has a verifier contract. P256 and RSA verifiers exist today. Neither is post-quantum, but the slot is there, and a hash-based verifier can go into it when one ships.
That turns a mass migration into a key rotation. We took this route with ONCHAINID v3 for other reasons, and it is why this debate reads a little differently from where I sit.
Two limits. A rotation is signed by the current key, so it has to happen before a scheme breaks. And none of it helps a plain wallet with nothing in front of the key, which is most of crypto today. That is where Justin's advice applies, and it is worth taking.
The timeline is unknown. Designing so a signature scheme can be replaced costs very little now.
Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash.
Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase).
Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets.
IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).
Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot.
Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time?
Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.)
Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once.
Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case.
I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026).
Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS.
Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security.
The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.
Permissioning used to be the argument against us. Now it ships as a feature.
Somewhere along the way, participation rules stopped being a TradFi import and started becoming infrastructure.
Hyperliquid to Add Optional Permissioned Market Functionality to HIP-3
Hyperliquid announced that a future network upgrade will add optional permissioned market functionality (HIP-3*) to HIP-3. Once enabled, market deployers or their sub-deployers can manage onchain whitelists to restrict participants in specific markets. The feature is an optional extension of HIP-3 and will not affect existing markets. The initial version of HIP-3* is currently live on testnet. Hyperliquid said the feature is designed to help deployers operate markets in accordance with applicable regulatory and other requirements.
5
145
Classification is a one-time legal fact. Eligibility is a runtime check that has to hold on every chain.
CLARITY only settles the first.
2
111
Collateral mobility is the use case that moves real money.
The moment assets can travel 24/7 without breaking the rules that govern them, you free capital and cut risk at once. 💡
Not enough people are talking about the collateral utility unlocked through tokenization.
Tokenized collateral will release $billions of stagnant, inert high quality, liquid assets back into the economy while ironically reducing risk.
How is this possible?
Usually, if you want to reduce risk, you actually increase collateral and decrease capital efficiency. This is intuitive; it makes sense. Cleared swaps often require 7 days of risk; uncleared swaps…10 days. Together, these pool are ~$1 trillion in size. (Not small).
Why so many days? Well, it comes down to a few things.
First, traditional markets close. If you have an insolvency going into a long weekend, you already lose 3 days.
Second, during a period of insolvency, typically there is an attempt to transfer or port collateral to a solvent counterparty. This is clunky.
Finally, liquidity matters as you delta hedge the book.
Through 24/7 markets, you get your 3 days back. And that transferability thing? Much easier.
Glad to see the 💡going on at the @ecb.
Eight years into building ERC-3643, the ambition is still the same. Give regulated assets a common standard the market can build on.
Really enjoyed our first T-REX Roundtable with @OpenZeppelin and @zama on where compliance, identity and confidentiality go next.
Institutions build the markets. Shared standards connect and enable them.
Daniel Coheur hosts @OpenZeppelin and @zama, with T-REX's Joachim Lebrun, on how compliance, confidentiality, and security work together at the token level.
🎙️ Full roundtable below ↓
A wallet is a custody endpoint. The investor is the verified holder behind it.
That distinction matters once institutions start using multiple wallets, moving assets between custodians, or recovering access after a key is lost.
When every wallet is treated as a separate investor, the same institution can end up with duplicated identity records, repeated checks, and ownership data that has to be reconciled across several accounts.
A persistent identity account gives the verified holder one identity across multiple approved wallets. ERC-3643 uses the Identity Registry to map each wallet back to that account and check the holder’s claims before allowing a transfer.
The practical benefit is continuity. A new wallet can be added, or custody moved without treating the investor as a new participant each time.
That reduces duplicate onboarding, keeps eligibility data aligned, and gives issuers and service providers one consistent investor record to work from.
2
139
For a year, I’ve heard the same argument against our choice of Zama for @trex_network: “FHE is too slow and too expensive to scale.”
Today: 1,000 confidential TPS on GPUs, a year ahead of schedule.
The public vs private chain debate is starting to look obsolete.
A tokenized bond that can only sit in one wallet on one chain isn't more liquid than the paper version.
Liquidity comes from being able to move it, pledge it, trade it across venues, without breaking who's allowed to hold it. That’s what gives tokenized assets the utility they need.
5
1,015
A tokenized security that mirrors a register sitting somewhere else still leaves you reconciling two versions of the truth:
the token, and the actual book of record.
That reconciliation problem disappears once the register itself is the onchain record.
7
133
@zama partnered with @trex_network earlier this year to bring confidentiality to compliant RWA assets with a $100B commitment from Apex Group in the next 12 months. I let you connect the dots.
🚨 THE FIRST BATCH JUST HIT 🚨
Over $3.3 MILLION USDC is now sitting inside $Zama ’s confidential vault.
Not a testnet.
Not a demo.
Not a whitepaper.
Ethereum mainnet. #Real capital. #Real users. #Real demand.
What’s fascinating is that people aren’t depositing for some crazy incentive program.
They’re depositing for something crypto has been missing since day #ONE
#Privacy
For the first time, users can earn yield without broadcasting their balance, position size, entry point, and strategy to the entire internet.
No new #chain
No new #wallet
No #bridge
Just confidential DeFi on Ethereum.
And this is only the beginning.
Today it’s a #confidential #USDC vault powered by Morpho and curated by Steakhouse Financial.
Tomorrow?
Confidential stablecoins.
Confidential RWAs.
Confidential treasury management.
Confidential lending.
Confidential payments.
The market has spent years proving people will pay for convenience.
Now we’re finding out how much they’re willing to pay for confidentiality.
The number I’m watching isn’t APY.
It’s #TVL
$3.3M → $10M → $50M → $100M
Because once institutions realize they can finally put capital onchain without exposing their entire strategy, the conversation changes.
This isn’t just another vault.
This may be the first glimpse of what a privacy-powered DeFi economy looks like.
$ZAMA is no longer selling a vision.
They’re processing #REAL capital.
$80B tokenized on ERC-3643 👀
Thank you for having me @ConvergeDefiant it was a great conversation with @Storaker about @ERC3643Org @AscendFi and @trex_network 🙌🙌
Based on our 2026 Survey of our members we can confirm over $80B of assets has been issued, with a full potential of $7.9T, by 2027 we project $200B + of assets across our members and ecosystems. Special thanks to the team at @RWA_xyz who advised and helped us through the process, more to come!
Exactly. That's why ERC-3643 exists. Real finance needs to respect rules and ERC-3643 enables exactly that.
The rules still apply for finance onchain.
Regulated institutions need the same controls, privacy, and safeguards expected in traditional finance.
Only Avalanche is built for that level of institutional control.
As Andre Frank, COO of @tassatgroup, explains: the right partners matter all the way down to the blockchain level.
3
126
The “public vs private chain” debate is over.
With @zama , you get confidentiality on public chains.
With @trex_network , you get compliance at the asset level.
No trade-offs anymore.
This is how institutions move onchain.
Trillions. 🦖
The infrastructure gap holding institutions back from compliant tokenization at scale is finally closing 🔒
Our Co-founder @0xMuchScience joins Ghazi Ben Amor (@zama), Daniel Coheur (@ApexGlobalGroup), Serena Leung (@0xPolygon), and Jonathan Alexander (@OpenZeppelin), to explain how compliance, confidentiality and cross-chain interoperability converge.
Trillions loading 🦖
🎥 Watch full discussion here: youtu.be/8erIPURQoc8?si=hjp3…
Calling regulated assets “centralized” misses the point.
ERC-3643 is permissioned by design, with compliance enforced onchain, not arbitrarily.
That’s the only way RWAs can exist on public chains.
You know what’s dark? Your dishonesty. You don’t care about permissionless at all. For example, you retweeted the below… it’s about a centralized issuer issuing a centralized asset. Why did you do it? Because it’s on “your” chain. If you truly cared about permissionless all that much (aka “dark times”), you’d say the only asset that should exist on ETH is…. ETH or similar assets. No RWAs. Definitely no RWAs that have centralized control. But again, you’re not really honest.
You talk from a position. You try to push for your bags. And that’s ok btw, but “dark times”. lol, give me a break.
Wrapping securities into permissionless tokens and calling it “RWA” is the most dangerous narrative in this space.
You’re not tokenizing assets.
You’re creating detached instruments with unclear rights.
That works… until it doesn’t.
The only model that holds is when the token is the legal asset:
compliance embedded, identity enforced, transfers as proof.
That’s why we built ERC-3643 and @trex_network this way.
The rest will break under pressure.
🦖
RWAs r the 2026 super-cycle, but most TVL is made of "Paper Tigers" 🚩
While every1 is chasing yield, I'm deep-diving in2 the audit. U cannot outrun a bad legal structure. If a protocol can't answer "What happens to the asset if we go bankrupt?", it's a gambling den
Stop being exit liquidity. Audit ur RWAs using this 5-point checklist before buying:
1️⃣ Legal Wrapper Check: SPV documents must show a direct, enforceable claim on the physical asset. No claim = no value
2️⃣ Bankruptcy Remoteness: Is the SPV isolated from the protocol’s debt? Check the docs for asset-level ring-fencing
3️⃣ Oracle Integrity: How is off-chain valuation brought on-chain? Use Chainlink or specialized providers, not an admin key
4️⃣ Proof of Reserve: Use on-chain Proof of Reserve and/or verified Tier-1 auditor attestations, not a dashboard UI
5️⃣ Off-Ramp Liquidity: If u cannot easily sell or redeem, it's not a market, it's a trap. Check secondary market volume on licensed exchanges
RWA isn't a category; it's an inevitability. But only 4 those who audit
Which check is the biggest challenge 4 new projects? Drop your thoughts below. 👇
