Chronos Vault

Posted on Nov 28

Building Trinity Shield™ Custom In House TEE for Multi-Chain Consensus Seeking Open Source Feedback

#blockchain #security #rust #opensource

How we're adding hardware security to a formally verified 2 of 3 consensus system across Arbitrum, Solana, and TON. 78 Lean proofs. Zero external dependencies.

Trinity Shield

TRINITY Shield architecture

Trinity Shield Lean Integration

The Problem with External TEE Services

I've spent 3 years building Trinity Protocol a 2 of 3 multi-chain consensus system that distributes trust across Arbitrum, Solana, and TON. When a community member suggested adding Trusted Execution Environments (TEE), I researched the options:

Oasis ROFL: $100-150/month, vendor lock-in
Cloud TEE (Azure, GCP): $200-300/month, external dependency
Phala Network: Third-party infrastructure

None of these fit our philosophy. We've built everything in-house: 12 Arbitrum contracts, 3 Solana programs, 3 TON contracts, and 78 Lean 4 theorem statements. Why would we outsource our hardware security layer?

So we're building Trinity Shield™ our own TEE solution.

What We've Already Built

Before diving into Trinity Shield, here's what Trinity Protocol already has:

Deployed Infrastructure

Chain	Contracts	Status
Arbitrum Sepolia	12 verified contracts	✅ Live
Solana Devnet	3 programs + CVT token	✅ Live
TON Testnet	3 contracts (quantum-resistant)	✅ Live

7-Layer Mathematical Defense Layer (MDL)

Zero-Knowledge Proofs (Groth16)
Formal Verification (Lean 4) 78 theorems, 58 proven
MPC Key Management (Shamir + CRYSTALS-Kyber)
VDF Time-Locks (Wesolowski VDF)
AI Anomaly Detection
Quantum-Resistant Cryptography (ML-KEM-1024)
Trinity 2 of 3 Multi-Chain Consensus

Trinity Shield becomes Layer 8.

Trinity Shield Architecture

Here's what we're designing:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    TRINITY SHIELD™                          │
│              Custom In House Hardware Security              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                             │
│  ┌─────────────────┐  ┌─────────────────┐  ┌─────────────┐ │
│  │ Trinity Shield  │  │ Trinity Shield  │  │ Trinity     │ │
│  │ Arbitrum Node   │  │ Solana Node     │  │ Shield TON  │ │
│  │ (Intel SGX)     │  │ (Intel SGX)     │  │ (AMD SEV)   │ │
│  └────────┬────────┘  └────────┬────────┘  └──────┬──────┘ │
│           │                    │                   │        │
│           └────────────────────┼───────────────────┘        │
│                                │                            │
│                     On-Chain Attestation                    │
│                     Verifier Contract                       │
│                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Key Design Decisions

1. Hardware Isolation for Validator Keys

Each validator runs inside an SGX enclave. The signing key is:

Generated inside the enclave
Sealed to the hardware (never leaves)
Usable only by attested code

Even if someone compromises the host machine, they can't extract the key.

2. On-Chain Attestation Verification

A Solidity contract verifies SGX attestation reports:

function verifyAttestation(
    address validator,
    bytes calldata attestationReport,
    bytes calldata signature
) external returns (bool) {
    // 1. Parse attestation report
    // 2. Verify enclave code hash is approved
    // 3. Verify Intel Attestation Service signature
    // 4. Set attestation expiry (24 hours)
}

Validators must re-attest every 24 hours. Unattested votes are rejected.

3. Integration with Existing Consensus

Trinity Shield doesn't replace our 2 of 3 consensus it hardens it:

Before: Validator signs vote → Consensus contract verifies
After:  Enclave signs vote → Attestation verified → Consensus verifies

The consensus logic (proven in Lean) runs inside the enclave.

Connecting Lean Proofs to Hardware

This is where it gets interesting. We have 78 Lean 4 theorem statements proving our security properties. Here's how they connect to Trinity Shield:

Lean Theorem	What It Proves	Trinity Shield Connection
`TrinityProtocol.two_of_three_consensus`	2-of-3 voting is correct	Enclave enforces this logic
`ByzantineFaultTolerance.safety_with_one_byzantine`	1 bad validator can't corrupt	Attested enclaves are trusted
`QuantumResistant.shors_algorithm_resistance`	ML-KEM resists quantum attacks	TON enclave uses ML-KEM-1024
`MPC.k_of_n_reconstruction`	k shares reconstruct secret	Key shares in separate enclaves

The Meta-Theorem:

If attestation is valid AND Lean proofs hold → system secure even if host compromised

We want to formalize this in Lean 4 itself.

What I'm Looking For

I'm a solo founder who's been building this for 3 years. I prefer async communication (no live meetings). Here's what would help:

1. Architecture Feedback

Is the attestation verifier design sound?
What's missing from the SGX enclave design?
How do other projects handle attestation expiry?

2. SGX/TEE Experience

Gotchas with Intel SGX in production?
Should we use Gramine, Occlum, or raw SGX SDK?
How to handle enclave updates without breaking attestation?

3. Lean 4 Formal Verification

Anyone doing TEE + formal verification?
Ideas for proving enclave behavior matches Lean specs?

4. Open Source Projects

Looking for similar projects to learn from:

Attestation verifiers on-chain
Enclave to blockchain bridges
Hardware security for validators

Our Formal Proofs (Verify Yourself)

All our Lean proofs are MIT licensed:

Repository: https://github.com/Chronos-Vault/chronos-vault-security

Key Files:

formal-proofs/Consensus/TrinityProtocol.lean — 2-of-3 consensus
formal-proofs/Security/ByzantineFaultTolerance.lean — BFT with f=1
formal-proofs/Cryptography/QuantumResistant.lean — Post-quantum security
formal-proofs/Cryptography/MPC.lean — Shamir secret sharing

To verify:

cd formal-proofs
lake build

Currently 58 of 78 theorems have complete proofs (74%). The rest have theorem statements with sorry placeholders.

Why Build In-House?

External Services	Trinity Shield (In-House)
Monthly subscription	One time development
Vendor lock-in	Full control
Generic security	Built for our protocol
Black box	Open source (MIT)
No Lean integration	Connected to 78 proofs

We've been building this way for 3 years. Every line of code is ours.

Timeline

Q1 2026: SGX enclave development (Rust)
Q2 2026: Attestation verifier deployment (Arbitrum)
Q3 2026: Production hardware + security audit
Q4 2026: Open source release

Get In Touch

I'm building this in public and would love feedback from the community.

Website: https://chronosvault.org

GitHub: https://github.com/Chronos-Vault

Email: chronosvault@chronosvault.org

Preferred: Async communication (email, GitHub issues, comments here)

Drop your thoughts below or open an issue on GitHub. Every bit of feedback helps.

Trinity Shield™ Layer 8 of the Mathematical Defense Layer

"Mathematically Proven. Hardware Protected."

About Trinity Protocol

Trinity Protocol is a 2 of 3 multi-chain consensus verification system deployed across Arbitrum, Solana, and TON. It secures vault operations, HTLC atomic swaps, and cross-chain messaging with Byzantine fault tolerance. The protocol includes 78 Lean 4 theorem statements proving its security properties mathematically.

Deployed Contracts:

Arbitrum: 0x59396D58Fa856025bD5249E342729d5550Be151C (TrinityConsensusVerifier)
Solana: CYaDJYRqm35udQ8vkxoajSER8oaniQUcV8Vvw5BqJyo2 (ChronosVault)
TON: EQeGlYzwupSROVWGucOmKyUDbSaKmPfIpHHP5mV73odL8 (TrinityConsensus)

DEV Community