Aster explains private trades and selective access on its new chain

What Aster said about trading privacy

Aster’s 20 March 2026 launch discussion explained how its chain was intended to keep trading information private while allowing chosen people to inspect it. In the published question-and-answer transcript, the company describes encrypted trade records and a time-limited viewer pass. It also explicitly distinguishes trade privacy from fund-transfer privacy: movements between addresses remain public. These are the operator’s descriptions of the design, not results of an independent security assessment.

The technical documentation adds a time boundary

Aster’s official chain-query documentation says enabling account privacy applies to new orders placed afterward. Orders completed while privacy was disabled remain visible. A later setting therefore should not be interpreted as erasing an already public trading history. The documentation exposes an account-privacy status alongside its account, order and fill interfaces.

The fill-history interface also has explicit retrieval limits: queries cover at most seven days and responses contain at most one thousand records. Spot and futures fills use separate methods. These details matter when someone checks the completeness of a report. A result from one permitted query is not necessarily the whole account history, and a missing entry can reflect query scope rather than proof that no trade occurred.

Private execution and later reporting can coexist

Imagine a fictional trading team that does not want to reveal a live strategy publicly but must explain completed activity to an internal reviewer. The team’s desired outcome has two parts: keep its ongoing decisions out of a public display, then provide an appropriate reviewer with evidence about the completed period. Those goals are not inherently contradictory if the system supports controlled disclosure.

For this example, suppose the review concerns a two-week experiment. The reviewer needs to know which account and dates the evidence covers, rather than seeing only a screenshot of a favorable final balance. A complete review might compare the starting position, completed fills, costs and ending position. Those are the questions the fictional team wants answered; this article does not claim that a viewer pass itself automatically produces such a report.

The time-limited access described in the launch can be understood as access to an inspection window. It does not mean the recipient forgets information already seen when the window ends. If the reviewer exports or records data while legitimately able to see it, expiry cannot be assumed to erase those copies. This is a general consequence of disclosing information, not an accusation that the announced access control fails.

A history query can be incomplete without being wrong

Use another invented example with a reporting period of fourteen days and fifteen hundred completed fills. An analyst who retrieves only the final seven-day window has not covered the first week. If a response also reaches a record limit, merely seeing a successful response does not establish that every requested event is present.

The practical lesson is to compare the report’s claimed coverage with the inputs actually retrieved. In our example, a chart labelled “full experiment” would overstate its evidence if it included only the second week. A narrower label would be accurate but would not answer the original review question. Completing the work requires a retrieval method that covers the intended period and checks for omitted records, rather than adding confidence to an incomplete chart.

This distinction is useful even without programming knowledge. A reader can ask what dates a report starts and ends with, which trading product it covers and whether its quantities reconcile. Those are concrete completeness questions. They do not require believing or rejecting a broad privacy claim before inspecting the available evidence.

What the launch changes, and what it does not establish

The feature described by Aster addresses who can see trading information and when. It does not establish that a private strategy is profitable, that every external reporting tool can interpret the data, or that public transfers become untraceable. A useful evaluation begins with the particular information a person wants protected and the particular recipient who may need to inspect it later.

For the fictional team, success would mean a clear boundary around live strategy details and an accurate, deliberately scoped review afterward. The launch transcript describes the intended disclosure mechanism; the technical reference identifies some concrete historical and retrieval limits. Reading both gives the announcement a more practical meaning than treating the word “private” as a single promise covering every record, action and future use of the data.