Benefit & Subsidy Eligibility Proof
Residents and businesses prove only "meets the eligibility criteria" — without disclosing income tier or attributes. The granting body and auditors verify conformance while holding no unnecessary personal data.
For benefit eligibility teams
Prove eligibility without collecting raw income, household, and attribute data — removing the storage-and-leakage liability entirely.
-
Public-sector teams handling benefit/subsidy eligibility checks
-
Teams troubled by application-processing load and the leakage surface of held personal data
-
Organizations wanting fair, consistent review that survives staff turnover
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Nothing changes on the floor. Everything changes for the receiver.
① Your team just saves, as always.
- The usual step
- Fill in the record and save
- On save
- A proof is attached (API, behind the scenes)
- The document itself
- never sent
② They just open a link.
- Proven fact
- meets the benefit eligibility rules
- income, household and attribute details
- not shown
- Login / keys
- not needed
- The document stays private — the record itself is never sent or disclosed.
- Independent verification — the receiver just opens a link. No account, no keys.
- Edits are detected — even a one-character edit fails verification.
Present only a proof that an applicant "meets the eligibility criteria" (income tier, residency, target category). Raw income amounts and household data are not disclosed. The granting body verifies conformance without storing the contents, and auditors confirm the same proof independently.
It arrives not as "more IT" but as the benefit of reducing dependence on individuals and privacy exposure.
Why the usual methods fall short.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-evidence — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-evident | What happens |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access control / permissions | △ | ✗ | ✗ | “Someone inside could have edited it” remains possible |
| Masking / redacted copies | △ | ✗ | ✗ | Redaction work grows; the original is still unproven |
| Encrypt and store / send | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | To verify, the receiver needs it disclosed after all |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | The receiver just opens a link |
How it works — and how to start.
We help design disclosure scope and retention, run the PoC, and support production.
Start with a 30-minute call.
Tell us the one benefit/subsidy with the heaviest raw-data storage burden, in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of sensitive data required.
Find the case that matches your industry and problem
Browse all 36 use cases →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.