chore(approaches): I2U analysis pass

[Meyanis95]

Closes #124.

Scope narrowed to in-map approaches only; bonds, derivatives, trade-settlement, and dvp-atomic-settlement assessed and skipped (no credible end-user in current framing). Per-sub-approach context: sweep applied: re-label i2i → both where the underlying tech already serves end users; leave i2i where the design is institution-only.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Broadened applicability for L1 Shielded Payments, Stateless Plasma, and Private Rollups to reflect wider contexts.
  • Added Self‑Custodial Deployment to White‑Label guidance, expanded governance comparison, persona views, and recommendations.
  • Clarified privacy properties and end‑user custody mechanics across payment and deployment approaches.
• Chores
  • Updated changelog with an I2U analysis note and recorded the approach document updates.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@Meyanis95 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 50 minutes and 55 seconds before requesting another review.

You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 76fa09d6-d4ed-4c58-9533-d0f6235cef63

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c8a7548 and d2c9af1.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CHANGELOG.md
• approaches/approach-private-payments.md

Walkthrough

This PR documents an institution-to-user (I2U) analysis pass across three existing approaches and introduces a new deployment model. Three approaches are reclassified from i2i-only to both contexts with clarifications on end-user independence. A new Self-Custodial Deployment model is added to white-label deployment, incorporating forced withdrawal and user-controlled state custody mechanisms.

Changes

Approach Context Expansion and Self-Custodial Deployment

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Private Rollups context relabeling approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md	Private Rollups context updated from i2i to both. Added narrative explaining end users on privacy-native rollups benefit from protocol-default mempool privacy without requiring venue trust, while permissioned variants remain institutional. Comparison table updated to reflect expanded context.
L1 Shielded Payments and Stateless Plasma context relabeling approaches/approach-private-payments.md	Both L1 Shielded Payments and Stateless Plasma context updated from i2i to both. Added clarifying bullets stating that end-user wallets custody state/exits independently, making privacy properties structurally tied to exit games rather than operator contingency. Comparison table's Context row updated to mark all three approaches as both applicability.
Self-Custodial Deployment introduction approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md	Added pattern-plasma-stateless-privacy to supporting patterns. New "Self-Custodial Deployment" section describes institutional deployment built on stateless plasma with client-side state custody, forced withdrawal, and user-co-signed regulatory disclosure. Comparison table expanded to four governance models (adding Self-Custodial column). Persona perspectives revised to cover self-custody engineering/liveness implications and legal/risk aspects of per-request user co-signing. Recommendation decision factors include new bullet selecting Self-Custodial when institution seeks minimal self-trust surface and users can operate state-custody wallets.
Changelog entry CHANGELOG.md	Added chore(approach) entry documenting I2U analysis pass across Private Payments, White-Label Deployment, and Private Broadcasting. Records Self-Custodial Deployment addition and context relabeling of L1 entries from i2i to both. References issue #124 closure.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• ethereum/iptf-map#157: Modifies approaches/approach-private-payments.md with restructuring and a resilient disbursement rails tier that touches the same document sections.
• ethereum/iptf-map#160: Aligns context and metadata fields across approach cards, overlapping approach-private-payments.md and approach-white-label-deployment.md.
• ethereum/iptf-map#131: Adds/expands forced withdrawal and L1 escape-hatch guidance relevant to the new Self-Custodial Deployment content.

Suggested reviewers

• oskarth
• rymnc

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Linked Issues check	❓ Inconclusive	The PR addresses issue #124 by systematically re-labeling context fields and expanding approach documentation; however, it implements a metadata/context-sweep approach rather than the full 'End-user considerations' section requested in #124.	Clarify whether the context re-labeling and expanded 'Works best when' bullets fully satisfy issue #124's requirement for explicit 'End-user considerations' sections, or if those sections are planned separately.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore(approaches): I2U analysis pass' directly describes the main change: a broad I2U (institution-to-user) analysis review across multiple approach documents.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description explains the scope (in-map approaches only, skipped categories, and per-sub-approach context sweep) but omits several template sections like checkboxes for content type and verification checklist items.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are directly aligned with the I2U analysis scope stated in the PR: updates to approach metadata, comparison tables, and governance models for in-map approaches. No unrelated changes detected.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/approaches-i2u-analysis

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[Meyanis95]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@CHANGELOG.md`:
- Line 7: The changelog entry text for the chore(approach) line is missing the
required PR reference; update that specific entry (the line starting
"chore(approach): I2U analysis pass across [Private Payments]... Closes
[`#124`](https://github.com/ethereum/iptf-map/issues/124)") to append the PR
number in the format "(`#NNN`)"—replace NNN with the actual PR number for this
change so the entry reads like the other entries that include a trailing "
(`#123`)" style PR reference.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 10244c93-7bf3-4e79-9d33-51bcd9bc6348

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 459440d and 8b3b69f.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• CHANGELOG.md
• approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md
• approaches/approach-private-payments.md
• approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md

📜 Review details

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (2)

CHANGELOG.md

⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file

CHANGELOG.md: Entries must go under [Unreleased], include a markdown link to the changed file,
reference the PR number (#NNN), and use a semantic prefix (feat(pattern):, feat(vendor):, fix:, docs:, etc.).

Files:

• CHANGELOG.md

approaches/**/*.md

⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file

approaches/**/*.md: This is an approach card.

Structure: Validate against the template at approaches/_template.md.
File naming and conventions are in approaches/README.md. Filename must start with approach- in kebab-case.

Approach cards MUST link to both the use case they address and the patterns they combine.
Flag if no pattern or use case cross-references are present.

Word limits: warn > 2000, error > 3000.

Files:

• approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md
• approaches/approach-private-payments.md
• approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md

🧠 Learnings (3)

📚 Learning: 2026-05-06T13:50:53.704Z

Learnt from: Meyanis95
Repo: ethereum/iptf-map PR: 160
File: approaches/approach-private-trade-settlement.md:42-62
Timestamp: 2026-05-06T13:50:53.704Z
Learning: For approach Markdown cards using the v2 schema in the ethereum/iptf-map repo, treat the use_case frontmatter slug as the canonical cross-reference to the addressed use case. Do not enforce an in-body markdown link to the use case on v2 approach cards. The in-body link requirement is a v1 convention and should not be applied to v2 cards; this distinction is tracked separately. This pattern applies to all approach Markdown files under approaches/ (e.g., approaches/**/*.md). For the file approaches/approach-private-trade-settlement.md specifically, ensure it adheres to the v2 rule by using the frontmatter use_case reference and omit enforcing in-body use-case links.

Applied to files:

• approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md
• approaches/approach-private-payments.md
• approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md

📚 Learning: 2026-05-06T13:50:59.931Z

Learnt from: Meyanis95
Repo: ethereum/iptf-map PR: 160
File: approaches/approach-private-money-market-funds.md:1-24
Timestamp: 2026-05-06T13:50:59.931Z
Learning: In iptf-map v2 approach cards, iptf_pocs is for IPTF-internal research prototypes tied to a specific sub-approach, while open_source_implementations is for third-party production-viability signals. Do not flag a missing iptf_pocs block unless an IPTF-internal prototype actually exists for that approach; a sub-approach with maturity: prototyped does not imply an IPTF PoC exists. Reviewers should: (1) verify whether an IPTF-internal prototype exists for the sub-approach in question; (2) if yes, ensure an iptf_pocs block is present and accurately describes it; (3) if no internal prototype exists, do not require an iptf_pocs block. This guideline applies to all approach markdown files under approaches/ in this repository (ethereum/iptf-map).

Applied to files:

• approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md
• approaches/approach-private-payments.md
• approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md

📚 Learning: 2026-05-06T13:50:58.986Z

Learnt from: Meyanis95
Repo: ethereum/iptf-map PR: 160
File: approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md:1-26
Timestamp: 2026-05-06T13:50:58.986Z
Learning: Follow the v2 schema for approach cards in approaches/**/*.md. iptf_pocs is strictly for IPTF-internal research prototypes with a matching sub_approach entry; open_source_implementations covers third-party production-viability signals. Do not flag missing iptf_pocs when there is no IPTF-internal prototype for the approach card; the field is optional and must not be fabricated.

Applied to files:

• approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md
• approaches/approach-private-payments.md
• approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md

🪛 LanguageTool

approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md

[style] ~243-~243: ‘under stress’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...olution timelines the regulator expects under stress. ## Recommendation ### Default For i...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_UNDER_STRESS)

---

[style] ~256-~256: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...ption that satisfies this constraint. - If the institution wants the smallest poss...

(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

approaches/approach-private-broadcasting.md (1)

122-123: LGTM!

Also applies to: 146-147, 157-157

approaches/approach-private-payments.md (1)

85-86: LGTM!

Also applies to: 110-111, 166-167, 190-191, 317-317

approaches/approach-white-label-deployment.md (1)

14-14: LGTM!

Also applies to: 178-229, 235-236, 239-240, 243-244, 256-257