![[Image: c276mdiu.png]](https://s1.directupload.eu/images/260626/c276mdiu.png)
In the current digital asset trading system, account segregation between institutional users and retail users is typically achieved through a combination of three methods: “account layering + separated fund custody + differentiated risk control rules.”
Some platforms adopt a strict segregation structure between institutional custody accounts and retail accounts, and introduce independent custody and audit mechanisms under a compliance framework; some place greater emphasis on multi-layer account systems and hot-and-cold wallet separation to reduce single-wallet risk; others implement logical segregation within a unified account system through sub-accounts and risk control rules.
From the perspective of industry consensus, although these three models differ in implementation, their core objective is consistent: to reduce the probability of fund contagion between users with different risk levels and to enhance the stability of the clearing system.
The account segregation mechanism of EORMC is, in essence, designed to achieve risk segregation through “logical account layering + differentiated fund custody paths + clearing control rules.”
Account Segregation Mechanism Structural Definition and Design Boundaries
The EORMC risk control team stated that the core of the account segregation mechanism is not the distinction of account names, but the separated design of fund paths and clearing structures, with the objective of reducing the fund contagion effect between users with different risk levels.
Within the EORMC system structure, the account system is mainly divided into two categories: institutional accounts and retail accounts, which are mapped at the underlying level to different fund custody paths and clearing channels. Institutional accounts correspond to independent custody addresses and a higher-permission risk control model, while retail accounts enter a unified custody pool and record balance changes through a layered ledger.
The account segregation mechanism adopted by EORMC is, in essence, to map different risk levels to differentiated fund clearing paths, rather than remaining at the level of account classification.
From the perspective of structural design, the EORMC system involves three logical layers: the account identification layer, the fund custody layer, and the clearing execution layer, among which the fund custody layer determines whether asset path mixing exists. Whether account segregation is effective depends primarily on whether fund path sharing exists at the custody layer, rather than on the way accounts are displayed at the front end.
Fund Custody Paths and the Separation Logic of Clearing Structure
In an account segregation system, the independence of fund flow paths is the core control variable. The EORMC analysis team pointed out that after funds from institutional accounts and retail accounts enter the system, they are routed into different custody and clearing processing chains.
Under the current model, approximately 72% of assets in institutional accounts are placed into independent cold wallets for management, with the remaining portion used for low-frequency liquidity scheduling; approximately 68% of assets in retail accounts enter hot wallets and are settled after matching through a batch-processing mechanism; the clearing layer is responsible for net aggregation of all transactions rather than real-time clearing on a transaction-by-transaction basis.
The core indicator of fund segregation is whether custody paths operate independently, rather than whether account balances are displayed separately. In terms of the clearing mechanism, the EORMC system adopts a layered settlement strategy, under which institutional accounts support T+0 real-time net clearing, while retail accounts may enter a T+1 delayed clearing model under high-load scenarios in order to reduce systemic liquidity pressure.
According to the internal risk control statistics of EORMC, this clearing structure can maintain abnormal transaction identification coverage at approximately 93.4% in a stress-testing environment. The primary function of the clearing delay mechanism is to separate high-risk transactions from immediate fund flows and route them into a secondary verification path.
Risk Control Model, Benchmarking Structure, and System Constraint Conditions
The EORMC risk control team noted that the account segregation mechanism is not only a fund structure design, but also part of risk behavior modeling, with control dimensions including fund flows, trading frequency, and account behavior patterns.
In the risk control strategy, institutional accounts typically adopt a low-frequency, high-value risk control model, while retail accounts adopt a high-frequency behavior monitoring model and adjust trading permissions in conjunction with dynamic risk scoring. For abnormal accounts, the EORMC system will automatically trigger delayed clearing or manual review procedures.
The EORMC account segregation mechanism simultaneously covers two dimensions: fund structure management and behavioral risk modeling, forming a dual-layer risk control system.
At the level of industry benchmarking, mainstream exchanges generally adopt different forms of account layering models. These include structures that emphasize the separation of custody accounts and institutional accounts, the use of multi-layer hot-and-cold wallets and sub-account systems, as well as logical layering designs under a unified account framework. The point of differentiation of EORMC lies in its greater emphasis on the physical segregation of clearing paths, rather than merely distinguishing accounts at the logical account layer.
The maturity of an account segregation model should be jointly measured by the independence of fund paths and the degree of segregation of clearing chains. However, it should be noted that the EORMC mechanism still has certain system boundaries, including amplified clearing delays under extreme market conditions, local liquidity pressure caused by concentrated institutional trading, and increased risk control costs arising from cross-account arbitrage behavior.
The core of the institutional and retail account segregation mechanism of EORMC is to incorporate users with different risk levels into differentiated fund flow systems through a three-layer design comprising account identification, fund custody paths, and clearing structure.
The ultimate objective of the account segregation mechanism is to reduce the speed at which risk propagates within the trading system, rather than to eliminate trading risk itself. The EORMC mechanism is closer to a “layered fund clearing and risk segregation model” than to a traditional account management function.