GCC-NATIVE ZERO-KNOWLEDGE PROOF INFRASTRUCTURE

Prove Compliance.
Prove Solvency.
Reveal Nothing.

A new class of proof for financial institutions — one that is mathematical, not contractual. Demonstrate solvency and regulatory compliance to any authority, without exposing a single customer record, balance, or transaction.

Cannot Be Forged No Data Exposure Open-Source Verifier VARA · CBUAE · DFSA · SAMA
Solvency Proof Bundle VARA-Licensed Exchange · Dubai
VERIFIED
institutionVARA-LICENSED-001
snapshot2026-03-08 · regulator-controlled
accounts covered50,000 customer liabilities
solvency resultAssets exceed liabilities ✓
customer data exposedZero — none whatsoever
proof forgeableNo — mathematically impossible
trusted setupNone required
proof_id: vzk-vara-2026-03-08-001
audit_chain: 7 signed stages · tamper-evident
officer_attestation: signed · legally bound
regulator_seed: independently controlled ✓
✓ All verification checks passed Independent · 1.4 seconds
<2s
Independent Verification
Any machine · any observer
6
GCC Regulators
Native jurisdiction configs
34
Compliance Rules
Across 5 frameworks
0
Data Exposed
Cryptographic guarantee
The Problem

Traditional attestation is no longer sufficient

The FTX collapse was audited by a licensed firm. The audit didn't catch it. The financial industry needs a fundamentally different class of guarantee — one that is mathematical, not contractual.

💥
The FTX Lesson

$8 billion in customer funds were missing from an exchange whose solvency was certified by licensed auditors. A traditional audit cannot detect deliberate concealment — it verifies only the data it is given, by the party being audited. No procedure could have caught it.

TRUST FAILURE
⚖️
GCC Regulatory Pressure

VARA, CBUAE, and DFSA are actively mandating cryptographic Proof of Solvency for all licensed virtual asset service providers. These are not hypothetical requirements. Regulatory deadlines are real — institutions face license revocation for non-compliance.

REGULATORY MANDATE
🔐
The Privacy Dilemma

Proving compliance conventionally means exposing customer balances, transaction records, and treasury positions to auditors and regulators. Institutions face an impossible choice between satisfying regulators and protecting customer data under UAE PDPL and GDPR.

DATA EXPOSURE RISK
What You Need
Traditional Audit
Generic ZK Proof
VeraZK
Proof that cannot be forged by fabricating inputs
No
Partial
Yes — mathematically guaranteed
Zero customer data exposure
Full exposure required
Partial
Zero — cryptographic guarantee
Native GCC regulator support
None
None
VARA, CBUAE, DFSA, SAMA, QFMA, CBB
Verification by anyone — no trusted intermediary
Auditor access required
Sometimes
Open-source · anyone can verify
Verification in under 2 seconds
Days to weeks
Varies
Under 2 seconds, any machine
Regulator controls the snapshot — not the institution
Institution-controlled
Not available
Regulator ceremony device
Compliance + Solvency in a single proof engine
Separate engagements
Not available
Unified engine
What We Build

Two proof services.
One unified engine.

Both services run on the same underlying proof infrastructure — purpose-built for GCC financial institutions, with native support for every major regulator.

Proof of Solvency
For Exchanges & Custodians

A cryptographic proof that your total assets exceed your total customer liabilities — without revealing any individual balance, wallet address, or treasury position. The proof is independently verifiable by your regulator, your auditor, or any member of the public.

  • Proves solvency without revealing any customer balance
  • Snapshot timestamp controlled by the regulator — not the institution
  • Independent custodian attestations from approved third parties
  • Each customer can verify their own account is included
  • Officer attestation creates personal legal accountability
  • 50,000 customer accounts processed in under 97 seconds
  • Regulators, auditors, and the public verify independently in under 2 seconds
  • Native configurations for VARA, CBUAE, DFSA, SAMA, QFMA, CBB
Compliance Engine
For Banks & Financial Institutions

A proof that your institution's transaction patterns satisfy specific regulatory rules — without exposing individual transaction amounts, counterparty identities, or customer records to any external party, including the regulator receiving the proof.

  • Prove AML, sanctions, GDPR, HIPAA, and SOX compliance simultaneously
  • No transaction data, no customer records, no internal details exposed
  • 34 pre-built rules across 5 international regulatory frameworks
  • Jurisdiction-specific rules for UAE, DIFC, and ADGM regulated entities
  • Every rule is auditable — no hidden logic, no hardcoded thresholds
  • Behavioral anomaly detection without individual record exposure
  • Regulator receives a cryptographic proof, not a data export
  • Extensible — new frameworks and rules added without engine changes
What We Guarantee

Six guarantees that no
traditional audit can offer.

These are not contractual promises or best-effort commitments. They are properties enforced by mathematics — independent of the institution, the auditor, and us.

🔒
The Proof Cannot Be Forged

Producing a false proof that passes verification is computationally impossible — even for the institution that generated it. This is not a policy or a contractual claim. It is a mathematical property of the proof system. An auditor can be coerced. A mathematical proof cannot.

✓ Mathematically enforced
👁️
Zero Customer Data Leaves Your Infrastructure

Customer account identifiers are irreversibly anonymised inside your own hardware before any computation begins. No balance, no account number, no transaction appears in the proof bundle. The regulator receives a cryptographic attestation — not a data file.

✓ Cryptographic guarantee
⏱️
The Regulator Controls the Snapshot Time

The proof snapshot timestamp is set by the regulator's own dedicated device — not by the institution. The institution cannot choose a favourable date, pre-arrange asset positions for a known audit window, or generate multiple proofs and submit only the best one.

✓ Regulator-controlled ceremony
🌐
Anyone Can Verify Independently

The verifier is open-source and requires no account, no licence, and no contact with us. Any regulator, auditor, Big 4 firm, or member of the public can run verification independently and reach the same result. The proof is the authority — not the vendor.

✓ Open-source · MIT licence
🛡️
No Trusted Setup — Ever

Unlike some other zero-knowledge systems, VeraZK requires no secret ceremony, no shared parameters, and no "toxic waste" that must be destroyed. There is no secret that, if stolen or compromised, would allow false proofs to be created. The system is fully transparent from day one.

✓ Fully transparent
🔗
A Tamper-Evident Audit Trail

Every step of the proof pipeline — from raw liability data to the final submission bundle — produces a signed, chained record. Any tampering between stages is cryptographically detectable. Regulators and Big 4 firms receive a complete, independently verifiable chain of custody.

✓ End-to-end signed chain
The Protocol

From your ledger to a
verified proof in five steps.

A mathematical guarantee — not a contractual one. No sensitive data leaves your infrastructure at any point in the process.

01
Regulator Sets the Snapshot Time

Before any institution data is processed, the regulator independently designates the exact snapshot timestamp using their own ceremony device — a secure appliance we supply but the regulator owns and controls. The institution cannot see this time in advance, cannot modify it, and cannot generate a valid proof for any other moment.

✓ Institution has no control over the snapshot time
02
Your Data Stays Inside Your Infrastructure

The VeraZK engine runs entirely within your own systems. Customer account identifiers are irreversibly anonymised inside your hardware security module before any computation begins. Raw customer data, balances, and transaction records never leave your trust boundary — not to us, not to the regulator, not anywhere.

✓ No PII in any proof artifact — ever
03
Approved Custodians Attest Your Assets

Each third-party custodian holding your assets — Fireblocks, BitGo, or any licensed institution on the regulator's approved list — independently signs an asset attestation with a current timestamp. The institution cannot substitute an unapproved counterparty, and the regulator can revoke any custodian from the approved list at any time.

✓ Self-attestation is impossible by design
04
The Proof is Generated

A cryptographic proof is computed over your liability data, asset attestations, and the regulator's timestamp — all without embedding any raw data in the output. The resulting proof bundle is compact and tamper-evident. Every step in the generation pipeline produces a signed record, forming a complete chain of custody from input to proof.

✓ Complete signed audit trail from data to proof
05
Anyone Can Verify — Independently

The regulator, your auditor, your Big 4 firm, or any member of the public runs the open-source verifier against the proof bundle. Verification requires no account, no call to our systems, and no data access. The result — including the solvency determination — is computed entirely from the proof. It completes in under 2 seconds on any standard laptop.

✓ Open-source · no trusted intermediary
What makes this different from a Merkle tree proof

Merkle tree "proof of reserves" — used by several exchanges — shows that a list of balances sums to a claimed total. It does not prove that the assets actually exist, that the liability list is complete, or that the snapshot was taken at a regulator-designated time. VeraZK addresses all three.

Proof of assets, not just a list
Custodian attestations from approved, independent third parties are embedded in the proof — not just a claimed total from the institution itself.
📋
Completeness floor set by the regulator
The regulator specifies the minimum number of accounts that must appear in the proof, derived from their own licensing records. A proof covering fewer accounts than expected fails at generation.
🔒
Regulator-designated timestamp
The snapshot moment is controlled by the regulator's ceremony device. The institution cannot choose a favourable window or generate proofs at multiple times and submit the best one.
🏛️
Officer attestation with legal exposure
The compliance officer signs an attestation cryptographically bound to this specific proof. The signature cannot be reused on any other proof, creating direct personal legal accountability for the completeness declaration.
🌐
Customer self-verification
Each customer can independently verify that their account is included in the proof using only their own account token — no server interaction, no API call, no ability for the institution to track who is checking.

"A proof cannot be forged. An auditor can be compromised, negligent, or coerced. A mathematical proof cannot."

Regulatory Coverage

Every major GCC regulator.
Built-in, not bolted on.

Each regulator has its own configuration embedded in the proof engine — not a generic template adapted after the fact. Requirements, thresholds, approved custodian lists, and submission formats are native to each jurisdiction.

VARA
Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority
Dubai, UAE
CBUAE
Central Bank of the UAE
United Arab Emirates
DFSA
Dubai Financial Services Authority
DIFC, Dubai
SAMA
Saudi Central Bank
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
QFMA
Qatar Financial Markets Authority
Qatar
CBB
Central Bank of Bahrain
Bahrain
What "native support" means in practice

When a regulator updates their requirements, most changes are a configuration update — not a rebuild. The engine was designed from day one to evolve alongside regulatory frameworks.

Minimum account coverage floorThe regulator sets the minimum number of accounts that must appear in every proof, drawn from their own licensing records. An institution cannot produce a valid proof by reducing scope.
Approved custodian registryEach regulator maintains and signs their own list of approved asset custodians. The institution cannot use an unapproved counterparty — not even themselves.
Asset data freshness requirementsEach regulator defines how recent custodian asset information must be. Stale or future-dated asset attestations are rejected automatically — not by a manual review step.
Proof acceptance & revocation registryRegulators maintain a signed record of accepted and revoked proofs. Any proof that has been revoked fails independent verification — preventing an institution from presenting an invalidated proof.
Submission-ready output formatThe proof bundle is structured for direct regulatory submission — not a raw technical artefact that requires a separate preparation step for each regulator.
Compliance Engine

34 rules across five
regulatory frameworks.

Prove compliance with any combination of these frameworks simultaneously — in a single proof, with no transaction data or customer records shared with any external party.

AML / KYC8 Rules
Anti-Money Laundering · Know Your Customer · FATF-aligned
  • Transaction structuring detection
  • Layering pattern identification
  • Velocity and frequency anomaly monitoring
  • Politically Exposed Person exposure
  • High-risk jurisdiction routing
  • Beneficial ownership verification
  • Large cash-equivalent transaction limits
  • Cross-border transfer reporting thresholds
Sanctions5 Rules
OFAC SDN & SSI · Comprehensive Country Sanctions
  • Specially Designated Nationals list screening
  • Sectoral sanctions compliance
  • Comprehensive country sanctions enforcement
  • Sanctions evasion pattern detection
  • Indirect exposure through intermediaries
GDPR8 Rules
General Data Protection Regulation · EU/EEA Cross-Border
  • Cross-border data transfer adequacy
  • Lawful basis per processing activity
  • Data retention period compliance
  • Breach notification timeline
  • Right to erasure request handling
  • Data minimisation verification
  • Purpose limitation enforcement
  • Data Protection Officer designation
HIPAA7 Rules
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act
  • Protected Health Information access control
  • After-hours access anomaly detection
  • Snooping and over-access identification
  • Minimum necessary access standard
  • Business Associate Agreement coverage
  • Audit log integrity verification
  • Encryption-at-rest compliance
SOX6 Rules
Sarbanes-Oxley Act · Sections 302 & 404
  • Segregation of duties enforcement
  • Manual journal entry fraud patterns
  • IT general controls verification
  • Financial filing timeliness
  • Whistleblower policy compliance
  • Management certification integrity
UAE AMLGCC Rules
UAE AML Federal Law · CBUAE · DIFC · ADGM
  • UAE Federal Decree-Law on anti-money laundering
  • CBUAE guidance on virtual asset transactions
  • DIFC AML Module compliance
  • ADGM Financial Services Regulations
  • goAML reporting system readiness
  • Evolves automatically with regulatory updates
Open Source

The verifier is public.
The proof is the authority.

We publish the verification software under an open licence. Any regulator, auditor, or individual can run independent verification without contacting us, without a licence, and without trusting us.

  • 🔍
    Truly independent — no call-home, no account requiredAny regulator or auditor can embed the verifier directly in their own internal systems. It makes no network requests. Verification is a local computation against the proof bundle.
  • Under 2 seconds on any standard machineVerification is designed to be lightweight. A standard office laptop completes all checks in under 1.4 seconds. No cloud infrastructure, no GPU — by design.
  • 📜
    Open licence — no restrictionsRegulators, Big 4 audit firms, and even competing exchanges are free to embed the verifier in their own systems. We have no commercial interest in restricting who can verify.
  • 🏛️
    Structured output for regulatory submissionsThe verifier produces a structured report with all check results and the computed solvency determination — formatted for direct inclusion in regulatory submissions to VARA, DFSA, or any GCC authority.
  • 🔎
    Customers verify their own inclusionEach institution publishes an encrypted file allowing every customer to verify their account is included in the proof — locally, privately, with no server interaction and no tracking by the institution.
Request Verifier Access → Technical Documentation
verazk-verifier · solvency proof check
$verazk verify proof_vara_march_2026.bundle
Loading proof bundle...
Regulator context: VARA · Dubai · Production
✓ Proof format valid
✓ Circuit identity confirmed
✓ Regulator seed commitment verified
✓ Snapshot timestamp: regulator-controlled ✓
✓ Asset rate freshness: all within window
✓ Minimum account coverage: 50,000 ≥ floor
✓ Officer attestation: registry match ✓
✓ Custodians: all on approved registry
✓ Proof acceptance registry: accepted
✓ Proof not revoked or nullified
✓ Customer data: zero raw records in bundle
✓ Audit chain: all stages signed and intact
✓ Mathematical proof: all checks pass
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RESULT: PROOF VALID
SOLVENT: Assets exceed liabilities ✓
VERIFIED IN: 1.4 seconds
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Engagement Path

Three stages to your
first regulatory submission.

Each stage produces real, usable output. The pilot is a genuine end-to-end proof run on your infrastructure — not a simulation, not a presentation.

Pilot Mode
Evaluation Workshop
1 Day · On your infrastructure
  • Full end-to-end proof run with synthetic data
  • No regulator involvement required
  • No specialised hardware required
  • Your technical team runs verification independently
  • Board-ready demonstration proof bundle as output
  • Output clearly marked as non-regulatory
Parties Involved
Institution
Production Mode
Proof Generation Cycle
Ongoing · Per-jurisdiction cadence
  • Full regulatory enforcement active
  • Officer attestation with full legal binding
  • Regulatory submission-ready proof bundle
  • Big 4 co-signature option available
  • Proof acceptance registry tracking per cycle
  • Customer self-verification file published
Parties Involved
InstitutionRegulatorCustodian
What's Coming

A platform built to expand
across sectors and use cases.

The same proof infrastructure powers every use case. Each new service reuses the existing engine — reducing build time and maintaining consistent security guarantees.

LIVE
Proof of Solvency

Cryptographic solvency proof for exchanges and custodians. GCC-native configurations for VARA, CBUAE, DFSA, SAMA, QFMA, and CBB. 50,000 accounts under 97 seconds.

LIVE
Compliance Engine

34 pre-built rules across AML/KYC, Sanctions, GDPR, HIPAA, SOX, and UAE AML frameworks. Zero transaction data exposure. Extensible for new rules and frameworks.

ROADMAP
📊
Transfer Pricing Compliance

Prove to tax authorities that intercompany transaction prices fall within arm's-length range under OECD-approved methods — without revealing pricing strategy, margin, or individual transaction amounts to any authority.

ROADMAP
📈
Algo Non-Manipulation Proof

Prove to regulators that trading algorithms satisfy MiFID II, Dodd-Frank, and UAE SCA non-manipulation rules — without disclosing the strategy, algorithm parameters, or individual order data. Designed for firms under regulatory review.

ROADMAP
🔗
Multi-Custodian Aggregation

An institution with multiple custodians generates a single aggregate proof without any custodian revealing their individual holdings to the institution or to each other. The strongest solvency guarantee available for complex custody structures.

ROADMAP
Real-Time Continuous Solvency

Hourly proof generation and publication, giving depositors a live cryptographic solvency guarantee. A competitive trust differentiator for exchanges in the post-FTX environment — not just a compliance obligation, but a customer-facing feature.

Common Questions

Frequently asked questions

Questions from compliance officers, CFOs, CTOs, and regulators evaluating zero-knowledge infrastructure for the first time.

Does our customer data ever leave our systems?+
No — not in any form. The VeraZK engine runs entirely inside your own infrastructure. Customer account identifiers are anonymised inside your hardware security module before any computation begins. The proof bundle that leaves your systems contains no raw balances, no account numbers, and no transaction records. Your regulator receives a mathematical proof, not a data file.
How is this different from a Merkle tree proof of reserves?+
Merkle tree proof of reserves demonstrates that a claimed list of balances sums to a stated total. It does not prove that the assets actually exist with independent custodians, that the liability list is complete, or that the snapshot was taken at a regulator-designated time rather than a pre-selected favourable moment. VeraZK addresses all three — custodian attestations, a regulator-controlled timestamp, and a completeness floor set by the regulator.
Can the proof be forged or manipulated?+
No. Producing a false proof that passes verification is not a policy restriction — it is mathematically impossible. The proof's validity is determined entirely by the mathematics of the verification procedure. An institution cannot fabricate a valid proof showing solvency if their assets do not exceed their liabilities. This is the fundamental difference from a traditional audit, where a willing auditor is a vulnerability.
What happens if VARA changes its requirements?+
Most regulatory changes — minimum account thresholds, asset freshness windows, approved custodian additions — are handled through configuration updates, not engine rebuilds. For structural changes to the proof format, we provide updates with advance notice, and all production contracts include a regulatory change clause covering this scenario.
Who verifies the proof — and do they need our involvement?+
Anyone can verify using the open-source verifier — the regulator, your appointed auditor, a Big 4 firm, or any independent observer. Verification requires no interaction with us, no account, and no access to your data. It is a local computation against the proof bundle. The result, including the solvency determination, is computed entirely from the mathematics of the proof.
How does an institution prevent hiding accounts?+
Two mechanisms work together. First, the regulator specifies a minimum account count drawn from their own licensing records. A proof that covers fewer accounts than the regulator expects fails to generate — not fails to pass, fails to generate at all. Second, the compliance officer signs an attestation that is cryptographically bound to the exact proof bundle and account count, creating direct personal legal liability under UAE AML law for any deliberate omission.
Do we need specialised hardware to get started?+
No — not for the pilot. The evaluation workshop uses standard infrastructure and runs on any enterprise server environment. For production deployments, a hardware security module is required to protect the customer anonymisation key — but this can be cloud-hosted (AWS KMS, Azure Key Vault) or on-premises hardware, and the specific requirement depends on your regulator's mandate.
How do customers verify their own account is included?+
The institution publishes an encrypted file containing each customer's membership record. Each customer decrypts only their own record using their account token and verifies locally — without any server interaction, without the institution knowing who has checked, and without any balance or account data appearing in the shared file. This is a genuine customer self-service feature, not a customer portal that routes through the institution.
Get Started

Book your pilot workshop.

See a genuine end-to-end proof run on your own infrastructure before any commercial commitment. We bring the engine — you bring your technical team.

Email
contact@verazk.com
Response Time
Within 24 hours
Pilot Workshop
No charge · No commitment
Open-Source Verifier
github.com/verazk — Public
First Proof
Runs on your own infrastructure
What to expect from the pilot: We bring the engine. You bring your technical team and, optionally, synthetic data. The session produces a real end-to-end proof — from input to independently verified output. Your team runs the open-source verifier themselves before the session ends.