Health Informatics — 1-minute overview →
Connect any EIP-6963 wallet to explore the live ecosystem prototype (Rainbow, MetaMask, Coinbase, Brave, Rabby, Keplr, and others).
Permission Bridge

FSL Evidence Portfolio

SOVEREIGN by Design

Decentralized infrastructure for sovereign data governance — using regulated behavioral health as a deliberate proving ground

Phase 1 Demonstration — Sepolia Testnet

All contracts and tokens on Ethereum Sepolia testnet. No real monetary value. Honest framing — this is a working prototype, not a finished product.

Connect any EIP-6963 wallet (Rainbow, MetaMask, Coinbase, Brave, Rabby, Keplr, and others). A wallet is optional — the architecture is explained throughout for reviewers who prefer not to connect.

Known limitation: connecting here is a browser-level wallet selection, not an application session. Entering EncryptHealth from the cards below will prompt a second connection — the two run on separate origins and no auth handoff is implemented yet. Desktop browser-extension wallets are the supported path for this proof-of-concept; mobile WalletConnect signing is not yet reliable.

This ecosystem is the Applied Project for Dr. Margarita Montañez Davenport's Doctor of Engineering (Engineering Management) application to Arizona State University's Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering.

Doctoral framework: Praxis-track applied engineering — the deployed system IS the research contribution; the Research Document formalizes methodology, results, and generalizability.

Target enrollment: Spring 2027 (priority deadline October 1, 2026). BS MIS from CSU Global confers July 2026 (GPA 3.91, direct-qualifying applicant).

Research focus: FSL is a decentralized infrastructure framework for sovereign data governance, with behavioral health as the deliberate proving ground — chosen because it imposes the strictest regulatory load (HIPAA + 42 CFR Part 2), the highest stigma cost for data leakage, and the most complex consent topology of any deployable domain. The architecture is generalizable to real estate, supply chain, identity, government records, and other domains where participant-controlled data sovereignty is load-bearing.

Faculty alignment (Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering):

Central research question: Can wallet-signed bilateral consent serve as a defensible governance primitive for sovereign behavioral health data?

Three necessary lenses: BUILD — Dr. Dragan Bošković (Blockchain Research Lab): ecosystem architecture, on-chain bilateral attestation engineering, smart contract verification. PROVE — Dr. Gail-Joon Ahn (Fellow of IEEE and ACM; Cybersecurity / SEFCOM): consent formalization, formal access-control rigor, protocol property verification. VALIDATE — Dr. Hassan Ghasemzadeh (EMIL Lab): operational validation methodology, live deployment evidence.

Evidence portfolio:

  • 11 smart contracts deployed on Ethereum Sepolia (10 current, 1 superseded)
  • 4 platforms operational + 1 scaffolded backend (NeuroBalance biosensor integration layer)
  • Four flagship demos deployed and playable with on-chain achievement minting across three tiers: Bilateral Stimulation (L1), Build Your Plate (L2), Companion (L2), Constellation (L3). The L1/L2/L3 framework is architecturally wired for full build by 3D game designers. Each is playable at encrypthealth.io with a connected wallet on Sepolia; the recorded walkthrough shows them without one.
  • 3 open-source contributions (bcgov/aries-vcr #811, openmrs/fhir2 #577, openmrs/fhir2-ig #63)
  • Consent-gated wearable data — working demonstration against the Google Health API, with on-chain permission attestation
  • AI council defined on self-hosted infrastructure
  • Ethereum Sepolia testnet + XRPL multi-chain readiness (scaffolded) with IPFS-pinned, wallet-access-gated off-chain storage
ResourceLink
CVView CV →
GitHubgithub.com/Future-Systems-Lab
OSS PRsaries-vcr #811 (merged) · fhir2 #577 · fhir2-ig #63
Giteagit.futuresystemslab.io

Why This Exists

My older brother EJ and I carried what happened to us in that house long after we left. We understood each other in a way only people who survived the same thing can. He made it to 50. He got a promotion. He felt overwhelmed and did what I had done - he asked for help. He went to his doctor. He was put on mental health medication. He noticed it did not feel right and said so. He called the office. He made an appointment. The office cancelled it. And cancelled it again. And cancelled it a third time. While he was on medication that was altering his neurochemistry, in a window of acute vulnerability that required urgency, the system sent him a cancellation notice. Three times.

On October 29, 2023 - six days after his 50th birthday - EJ shot himself.

I had sat in that psychiatrist’s chair and been told my absence was not her responsibility. EJ had made three appointments and been turned away every time. We came from the same house. We fought the same battles. We both reached for the same system. The difference in our outcomes was not effort. It was not willingness. It was not strength. It was a cancelled appointment. It was a doctor who decided follow-up was not her job.

EJ did not fail the system. The system failed EJ — specifically, precisely, and preventably. The gaps that killed him aren’t edge cases; they’re architectural features of a system designed around institutional convenience rather than human need. Future Systems Lab is the response: infrastructure that puts the person at the center of their own record, consent, and continuity of care. Behavioral health is the proving ground because it’s the hardest domain — the most regulated, the most identity-sensitive, the most consequential when systems fail. If the architecture holds here, it holds anywhere data sovereignty matters.

Advisory Targets · Arizona State University

CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTION

Can wallet-signed bilateral consent serve as a defensible governance primitive for sovereign behavioral health data?

One doctorate. Three necessary lenses: BUILD → PROVE → VALIDATE. Remove any one and the work does not stand.

THE PERMISSION BRIDGE — THE FSL MARK

The logo at the top of this page was derived from the research question, not chosen for it.

Circle — wholeness; the complete, integrated system.

Triangle — three load-bearing properties, all required: Autonomous · Anonymous · Secure.

Center — bilateral consent. Where two parties meet to sign; neither acts alone.

The center of the mark is the research question.

BUILD PRIMARY ADVISOR TARGET

Dragan Bošković

Director · Blockchain Research Lab · ASU

Can bilateral consent be implemented as an atomically-verified on-chain attestation that holds across a deployed multi-platform ecosystem?

Smart contract architecture and on-chain data structures. His lab is the direct intellectual ancestor — Vishnoi’s 2020 MedFabric4Me thesis (NuCypher proxy re-encryption) placed an intermediary in the trust path; FSL removes it by deriving keys from the participant’s own wallet signature. The doctoral contribution extends this to bilateral HKDF-derived session keys, so neither party alone can decrypt.

Detailed advisor brief →
PROVE

Gail-Joon Ahn

Professor · Cybersecurity · ASU

Does the dual-signature protocol satisfy formal properties of verifiability, attributability, revocability, and non-repudiation?

Co-advisor for consent formalization and formal access-control rigor. The Phase 5 dual-signature bilateral consent flow — EIP-191 paired with EIP-712, HKDF session-key derivation so neither party nor the operator can decrypt alone — engages his formal access-control expertise. Section 10.3 of the manuscript names formal verification of these properties as an open problem; his access-control formalism (Frankenstein, S&P 2025; CLEARS, CIC 2025) is how it gets closed.

Detailed advisor brief →
VALIDATE

Hassan Ghasemzadeh

Associate Professor · EMIL Lab · ASU

Does the protocol hold up in live behavioral-health deployment — comprehension, workflow, engagement?

Digital health systems, behavioral-health informatics, and AI-driven intervention methodology. His EMIL Lab’s work on deployed health-monitoring systems and real-world validation methods maps directly to the operational research question: does wallet-signed bilateral consent hold up in live sessions? Workflow impact, completion rates, latency, and participant comprehension are empirical questions — his methodology turns the deployed architecture into evidence.

Detailed advisor brief →

Thesis

DOCTORAL APPLIED PROJECT

DEng, Arizona State University — target Spring 2027

“Bilateral Wallet-Signed Consent: A Custom Signature Protocol for Decentralized Sovereign Data Governance, with Behavioral Health as Proving Ground.”

Central research question: Can wallet-signed bilateral consent serve as a defensible governance primitive for sovereign behavioral health data?

Behavioral health is the proving ground — the hardest regulatory, ethical, and identity-sensitive environment in which to validate that participant-controlled data architecture can scale. The infrastructure operates across six interlocking layers: Financial (ISO 20022 readiness, XRPL multi-chain scaffold, HNT tokenomics), Identity (deployed: EIP-191 single-signer wallet-gated consent — your wallet is your pseudonymous identity, no email, no password, no personal data; doctoral contribution: EIP-191 + EIP-712 dual-signature bilateral consent with HKDF session-key derivation, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 64/106,748, filed July 2026), Governance (SovereignLedger session attestation, AI orchestration pipeline), Compliance (regulation-aware architecture operating outside HIPAA scope), Therapeutic (HypnoNeuro L1/L2/L3 game framework — four demos deployed and playable with on-chain achievement minting: Bilateral Stimulation L1, Build Your Plate L2, Companion L2, Constellation L3; AlchemistForge shadow integration, Sovereign Guide framework), and Research (peer-reviewed manuscript under review at Blockchain in Healthcare Today (BHTY), submitted August 30, 2026, IRB scaffold, 3 open-source contributions).

If the architecture survives behavioral health, it generalizes. Legal records, education, identity, supply chain — anywhere data sovereignty matters.

This page is the evidence.

Research & IP Timeline

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Manuscript under review, Blockchain in Healthcare Today (submitted August 30, 2026). Citation and access will be published here upon journal acceptance.

Doctoral Research Contribution — Phase 5: Open Problem

✓ Deployed

Phase 1

Contract deployment

SovereignSession deployed + signaling server operational

⚠️ Scaffolded

Phase 2

Bilateral consent capture

Deployer-signed attestation (server-authoritative). Guide-initiated signing pending Phase 5

⚠️ Specified

Phase 3

EncryptHealth integration

Architecture specified. Direct contract calls pending

⚠️ Specified

Phase 4

Session attestation

Schema designed. Awaiting bilateral co-signing (Phase 5)

🔴 Open Research Problem

Phase 5

Doctoral applied-project contribution

Phase 5 — Bilateral Dual-Signature Consent (EIP-191 + EIP-712 + HKDF)

Both Sovereign Guide AND Participant produce two signatures each: an EIP-191 plain-language consent signature and an EIP-712 typed structured session attestation signature. The second party’s EIP-712 signature cryptographically embeds the first party’s, creating bilateral interdependence. Session encryption keys derive via HKDF from both EIP-712 signatures, so neither party — and not FSL — can decrypt the recording unilaterally.

Why this is an open research problem: EIP-191 is single-signer by design. EIP-712 provides typed structured data but no canonical bilateral consent pattern exists. Existing multi-sig wallets (Safe, etc.) solve treasury, not session attestation. Threshold ECDSA (Lindell, FROST) requires interactive multi-round protocols incompatible with consumer wallets. No published system among those surveyed combines EIP-191 plain-language consent + EIP-712 typed session attestation in a bilateral architecture with HKDF-derived session keys — this is the active research problem (patent-pending; Provisional Application No. 64/106,748, filed July 7, 2026).

Status: Phase 1 deployed and operational on Sepolia. Phases 2–4 scaffolded/specified. Phase 5 is the applied research frontier this proof-of-concept investigates submitted with the ASU DEng (Spring 2027) application. The bilateral consent protocol is patent-pending under two provisional applications on file (64/063,037, filed May 11, 2026; 64/106,748, filed July 7, 2026).

Live Demo Recording

Recorded July 12, 2026 — Sepolia testnet, simulated data.

Download recording (2.9 MB, mp4)

Recorded July 12, 2026 — a participant connects via the EIP-6963 wallet picker, signs plain-language informed consent, completes a bilateral-stimulation Sovereign Exercise (bilateral stimulation — rhythmic, alternating left-right sensory engagement — is a technique widely discussed in published psychology literature for its calming, focus-settling effects; here it is taught as a self-guided educational exercise, not a clinical procedure), HNT mints to the participant (owner-signed, server-side) and the reward is recorded in the participant chart; the participant can add HNT to their wallet display via EIP-747 (wallet_watchAsset); the mint is independently verifiable on Sepolia Blockscout. Why this matters: the on-chain mint demonstrates verifiable engagement incentives — the contingency-management principle of rewarding verified behaviors, implemented here as an auditable, participant-owned token for educational engagement rather than a clinic-administered voucher. Educational rewards, not clinical treatment. View participant address on Blockscout →

Doctoral Scope + Future Research Directions

The doctoral scope is Phase 5 (bilateral consent capstone). Three parallel advisor tracks extend the architecture: ecosystem architecture + on-chain verification engineering (Dr. Bošković, primary advisor), consent formalization + formal access-control rigor (Dr. Ahn, co-advisor), and AI-driven intervention methodology + operational validation (Dr. Ghasemzadeh, co-advisor). The directions below are potential post-doctoral research, not committed builds.

Phases 1–4 — Single-Party Consent Infrastructure (Phase 1 deployed; Phases 2–4 scaffolded/specified) FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED

Baseline established — EIP-191 wallet auth, on-chain attestation, WebRTC media, zero PHI on-chain.

Established the baseline: EIP-191 single-signer wallet authentication, on-chain session attestation, peer-to-peer WebRTC media, self-hosted TURN relay. Validated that wallet-signed consent can replace username/password identity in a regulated-domain testbed (behavioral health). No protected health information written on-chain; operates outside HIPAA scope by architectural design. Wallet compatibility tested (Brave, MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet). Internal security review documented; formal third-party audit planned pre-mainnet.

Contract: 0xbeb13A...65A1

Phase 5 — Bilateral Mutual Authorization + HKDF-derived Bilateral Session Encryption DOCTORAL CAPSTONE

The open problem: extend wallet-signed consent from single-signer to bilateral dual-signature.

The open research problem: extend wallet-signed consent from single-signer to bilateral dual-signature. Each party produces an EIP-191 plain-language consent signature and an EIP-712 typed session attestation signature. The second party’s EIP-712 signature embeds the first party’s, creating cryptographic interdependence. Session keys derive via HKDF from both EIP-712 signatures — neither party nor the infrastructure operator can decrypt alone. Among systems surveyed, no existing platform implements this combination of bilateral wallet-signed consent with HKDF-derived encryption and on-chain attestation (Provisional 64/106,748).

Biosensor + Clinical Track (Dr. Ghasemzadeh) PARALLEL TRACK

Independent track — orthomolecular AI and biosensor precursor detection feeding the sovereign record.

Independent clinical research track: orthomolecular AI integration (Phase 1) and biosensor amino-acid precursor detection (Phase 2), feeding measured data into the participant’s sovereign record. This is Dr. Ghasemzadeh’s domain — parallel to, not downstream of, the bilateral consent capstone.

Doctoral scope: bilateral dual-signature consent (Phase 5, capstone — Provisional 64/106,748). Primary advisor: Dr. Bošković (ecosystem architecture, Blockchain Research Lab). Co-advisors: Dr. Ahn (consent formalization), Dr. Ghasemzadeh (operational validation). The deployed system IS the research contribution.

Research Artifacts

Research Potential / Vision

FUTURE VISION — NOT BUILT, NOT NEAR-TERM

Spaced-Repetition Learning Architecture in Immersive 3D/VR

Four deployed demos establish the pedagogical pattern; the expanded library, VR delivery, and spaced-repetition layer are proposed research contributions.

Proposed. Four demos are deployed today across three tiers (L1 hypnosis-informed, L2 orthomolecular-informed ×2, L3 inner-child-informed), each ending in the same three-part structure: a documented side effect, an orthomolecular food and amino-acid association, and an inner-child stillness practice.

Extended across a full session library, that repeated structure produces spaced repetition and associative conditioning — the participant repeatedly links internal state to food, mood, amino-acid pathways, and embodied practice. The repetition is the pedagogy; the token reward reinforces it; the game wrapper keeps it experiential rather than clinical.

The proposed delivery is immersive 3D/VR rather than the current 2D interface — embodiment being central to the therapeutic modalities the framework encodes. Neither the expanded library nor VR delivery is built. The 27-session design catalog exists as a design artifact, not implemented.

This is behavioral-health learning architecture — Dr. Ghasemzadeh’s health-informatics domain. The four deployed demos establish the pattern; the expanded library, VR delivery, and the spaced-repetition pedagogical layer are the proposed research contribution his lab would shape.

Immersive 3D/VR Delivery of the Therapeutic Framework

VR as the natural medium for bilateral stimulation, guided induction, and embodied learning — not built, aspirational.

future vision

The three modalities the framework encodes — hypnosis-informed induction, orthomolecular-informed education, and inner-child-informed integration — each depend on attention, embodiment, or spatial engagement. A 2D interface flattens all three.

Bilateral stimulation is the clearest example: its mechanism is spatial and bilateral by definition, and a VR environment can deliver it as designed rather than as approximation. The same reasoning extends to guided induction (immersive attentional control), nutritional education (embodied, situated learning), and inner-child work (presence and spatial memory).

Delivered on decentralized infrastructure, the session attestation, consent record, and encrypted artifacts remain participant-owned regardless of the rendering layer — the sovereignty architecture is orthogonal to the interface.

None of this is built. It is the direction the deployed framework points.

Known Limitations

Documented gaps between what is built and what is claimed, maintained as an engineering backlog.

  • Session state: the header derives connection from a single flag that can report connected from a cached address with no live provider. Authenticated (may view) and can-sign (live provider present) need to be separate states. A fix was attempted and reverted July 30, 2026 — isolating them broke dashboard access, and correctness matters more than speed here.
  • Cross-origin: no auth handoff between the evidence site and the application.
  • Mobile: WalletConnect signing unreliable; desktop browser-extension wallets are the supported path.
  • Contract test coverage: 1 of 7 contracts covered. No coverage tooling or fuzzing yet.
  • Session attestation is deployer-signed, not participant co-signed — that is Phase 5, the doctoral contribution.
  • Full backlog: 49 items tracked in PRE_DEPLOYMENT_FORMALIZATION.md.
  • Encryption is wallet-locked: keys derive from the string form of an EIP-191 signature rather than the signature bytes, so a participant who switches wallet providers loses access to prior entries until the original provider is reconnected. Access is suspended, not destroyed — the signature is deterministic, so the key is reproducible. Demonstrated August 3, 2026. A multi-casing recovery path is deployed; deriving from signature bytes, recording provider identity at encryption time, and surfacing the creating address are scoped future work. Loss of the private key itself remains unrecoverable by design.

Regulatory Notice

This platform is an educational technology demonstration. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Content is for informational and research purposes only.

No protected health information is written on-chain. On-chain attestations contain only wallet addresses, cryptographic hashes, and timestamps. The system operates outside HIPAA regulatory scope by architectural design.

Open-Source Contributions

Contributions to open-source health-informatics and decentralized-identity projects. One merged after maintainer review; others in submission.

RepositoryContributionStatus
bcgov/aries-vcrHealthcare verifiable-credential schema examples + validationMerged
openmrs/openmrs-module-fhir2FHIR CodeableConcept normalization utility + tests (Java)Open
openmrs/openmrs-contrib-fhir2-igmacOS build documentation for FHIR2 IGOpen

Platforms

ModuleLocationStatus
EncryptHealth (unified platform)encrypthealth.ioLive ✓
HypnoNeuro (therapeutic games)encrypthealth.io/participant/dashboard?tab=sessionsLive ✓
SovereignLedger (session records)encrypthealth.io/participant/dashboard?tab=ledgerLive ✓
AlchemistForge (encrypted journal)encrypthealth.io/alchemist-forgeLive ✓
NeuroBalance (biosensor layer)—Scaffolded

Smart Contracts Sepolia Testnet

ContractAddressPurposeExplorer
HNT v2 (ERC-20)0x1ae1e10929f008d1f9883ce574a318abd86084e2HypnoNeuro platform token — earned via session engagementView →
EHTv2 (ERC-20)0x93583a7A24e50075c79b06db0be8Cf4D45B0bd88EncryptHealth platform token — supply capped 144KView →
HypnoNeuroNFT (ERC-721, HNNTKRN)0xCb9EcB00574DB29976c7C54045d443666D5C77713-level achievement NFTView →
SovereignLedger v20x4afA577fA914068451e0Aa97b61F23960f02aCc4Session attestation — claims, verification, pauseView →
AlchemistForge0x5e1757441D7d4a29788e6A59892d9F159DAB3c3BShadow work — Identify/Transmute/CelebrateView →
BenevolenceFund v30x804C41CA6A688a33A0FC33F8B13Dab5C02Fa2C503% session fee — annual 44/33/22 + 1% distribution (top 3 Guides + top participant)View →
FSL Sovereign Achievement (ERC-1155)0xC3F11d2F1F12bB96b9DCF7e8f85e9704D2869B8DSoulbound NFTs — 10 participant + 10 guide tiersView →
NeuroBalanceConsent0x21571805e57f792b66604b140a45D8C1b2E196b8On-chain consent registry — 11 granular consent flags, user-gated setConsent + revokeAll (deployed; app integration pending)View →
SovereignSession0xbeb13A360C6F0C77Ea3af3650Ab9762a1B9965A1Wallet-native session attestation — Phase 1 deployedView →
MerkleAnchor0x09f318717B44a22919Bd0B0EA445A41Ad889168cOn-chain Merkle root anchoring — msg.sender-keyed consent tree — first participant root anchored July 22 2026 (block 11329792).View →
BenevolenceFund v2 (superseded)0x96E8006a1fBB693B55fFf6254B8BF19EC605251BSuperseded by BenevolenceFund v3View →

Mainnet requires security audit

Wallet-Native Session Infrastructure

Identity + Therapeutic layers — operates outside HIPAA scope by architectural design

Replaces third-party video tooling with cryptographic identity at every layer. No name fields, no PHI captured, no centralized recording. EIP-191 wallet authentication for both Sovereign Guide and participant. WebRTC peer-to-peer media — FSL servers never relay or store video/audio content. On-chain session attestation records only that a session occurred between consenting wallets.

Contract

0xbeb1...65A1

Verify on Blockscout →

Phase Status

Phase 1 Deployed; Phases 2–4 Scaffolded/Specified

Phase 5 (mutual auth + encrypted recording) post-acceptance

Architecture: Self-hosted coturn TURN server · WebSocket signaling with EIP-191 auth · STUN/TURN ICE negotiation · On-chain attestation (SessionStarted/SessionCompleted events) · Downloadable proof card · WCAG AA accessible

Privacy Spec · Security Audit · Incident Response Protocol

Multi-chain readiness infrastructure

FSL’s architecture is scaffolded for optional XRPL integration alongside Ethereum. Ethereum Sepolia is the live architecture for governance, identity, credentialing, and session attestation. XRPL integration is scaffolded for future multi-chain payment acceptance and ISO 20022 alignment — the mainnet wallet is funded for readiness, but settlement integration is not yet active. Reviewers can verify the wallet activation and balance directly on XRPL Explorer — no wallet required.

XRPL Mainnet Wallet

rwR3...Pd

Balance

...

Status

...

Full address: rwR3etLJVxtQXYs2d9jgBQxzHBivtCMdPd

Verify on XRPL Explorer →

Trademarks

Mark Serial Filed Class Status
FUTURE SYSTEMS LAB 99533250 Dec 6, 2025 42 (Software/Tech) Published for Opposition — May 19, 2026
FUTURE SYSTEMS LAB 99821948 May 13, 2026 35 (Marketplace) Filed

Planned filings: SovereignLedger (Classes 9, 36, 42).

Patents

Title App. No. Filed Status
System and Method for Sovereign Data Governance via Wallet-Signed Consent Attestation in a Zero-PHI Behavioral Health Architecture 64/063,037 May 11, 2026 Provisional (Filed + Assigned)
System and Method for Bilateral Cryptographic Informed Consent Attestation via Dual-Signature Architecture (EIP-191 + EIP-712) with HKDF Key Derivation 64/106,748 July 7, 2026 Provisional (Filed + Assigned)
64/063,037: Assigned (ID 1803665) · Deadline May 11, 2027 64/106,748: Assigned (ID 1930496) · Deadline July 7, 2027 CIP: Both unify under single non-provisional

Entity Information

Entity
Future Systems Lab LLC
State
Wyoming

METHODOLOGY NOTE

This is a proof-of-concept demonstration system deployed on Ethereum Sepolia testnet. All contracts operate with zero real monetary value. The system has been tested by a single evaluator (the principal investigator). No external participants have been onboarded and no formal user study has been conducted. These limitations are intentional and documented as part of the proof-of-concept scope.