LP Claim Attestation
Prove DeFi liquidity-provider attributes — risk tolerance, KYC outcome, region — via ZK attestation. The protocol meets regulatory requirements; the LP keeps privacy.
Who this is for.
You run a DeFi protocol that needs to bound LP participation by regulatory eligibility — and you don't want the result to be "we collect KYC docs in a custodial database now." The compromises feel binary today: either accept the privacy and custodian cost of off-chain KYC, or accept the regulatory tail risk of permissionless participation.
-
Protocol design leads building regulated DEXes, lending markets, or cross-border liquidity venues
-
Compliance and risk owners weighing privacy promises against AML / KYC obligations
-
Jurisdiction policy designers implementing region-based participation limits at the protocol layer
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
the LP's KYC data and balances
meets the regulatory regime (region, risk tolerance)
An LP completes identity verification with an issuer that already operates under a relevant regulatory regime — a regulated KYC provider, an attribute authority, a banking partner. The issuer signs a credential against the LP's identity record. The LP holds the credential in its own wallet.
When the LP deposits into a Lemma-integrated protocol, the deposit path verifies a ZK attestation against the credential: "this LP passed KYC with an issuer accepted by this protocol, is resident in a region permitted by this pool's policy, and falls into the risk tier this pool requires." Nothing else crosses to the protocol. The protocol never holds, indexes, or retains the identity record itself.
Revocation lives at the issuer. If the LP's KYC lapses or region changes, the issuer publishes an update and the next deposit path verification fails — without the protocol ever scanning its own LP set.
Choose on three criteria.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-proof — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access control only | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Masking / anonymization | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Encryption only | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
What's next
We enter through eligibility-check design and a PoC, and stay alongside you through to operations.
- A 30-minute review — identify participation paths stalled by the prospect of holding LP identity data.
- Narrow to 1–2 decisions (results) to prove — e.g. "KYC passed with an accepted issuer," "resident in a permitted region," "at or below a configured risk tier" — the facts that gate participation. Not the underlying identity records.
- Design connection and revocation propagation — connection to your existing participation path and issuers, and the revocation flow where an issuer-side update reaches the next verification.
- Prove one path via a (quote-based) PoC — confirm per-attribute verification works on one participation path.
- Hands-on support from rollout through operations — existing plan tiers (Civic / Critical / Compliance) serve only as a cost reference; the setup and pricing are designed together.
Tell us one participation path where "want to gate by eligibility but don't want to hold identity data" applies, in the first 30 minutes. No LP identity records or pool configuration required.
The bigger picture
The bigger picture this use case belongs to.
We map use scenarios across industries and workflows by the four axes.
See use scenarios for Regulatory Attribute in Solutions →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.