I'm personally always a fan of alternative solutions, but I would be supportive of this if the intent behind patenting your solution is clearer - I will not support funding a proprietary solution via the treasury. I understand that in the first place this conflicts with non-custodial exchanges' business interests, but I've always liked the idea of non-custodial exchanges sharing liquidity and network effects, and this is something I'd like to restart the conversation on - I know that LCS and Airprotocol may have had discussions around this topic earlier but evidently those conversations did not pan out. As one of the people who was working closely with the LCS team on their integration, the main friction point they saw in building their solution, including to date, for running a non-custodial exchange on top of substrate multisig accounts is the onchain deposit required for every multisig operation, this manifests as a minimum sale amount on the part of the seller, and a requirement to prefund the multisig ahead of time, and no way to make "buy" orders onchain without the arbitrator initiating the multisig action. I'd be curious to know if that suits the properties of your exchange, or if you have any ideas on solutions to this problem.

Anything patented must be considered insecure, because nobody knowledgeable explores security concerns for patented works, and even highly reputable people might not reveal a break if they accidentally find one.

Phillip Rogaway is incredibly highly respected, and patented OCB only to prevent the military from using it, but still folks largely ignored OCB, and OCB2 was broken only 15 years later when someone finally explored it carefully enough. Rogaway intentionally permitted his patents to lapse recently, btw.