Platform Summary
OPTKAS is an institutional-grade settlement and control infrastructure operating a structured credit program. The platform issues, settles, and governs bond-like instruments using XRPL and Stellar as native settlement rails — under OPTKAS1-MAIN SPV (Wyoming, USA) with independent custody, multisig governance, and dual-chain evidence anchoring. No single entity controls more than one layer.
If You Have 5 Minutes
- Assets legally owned by SPV — OPTKAS1-MAIN SPV (Wyoming), $25.75M insurance, SEC-registered transfer agent
- Custody external to protocol — Independent qualified custodian, segregated per-investor accounts, daily reconciliation
- Settlement atomic via XRPL escrow — Delivery vs. Payment with SHA-256 cryptographic conditions, no counterparty window
- Governance enforced by 2-of-3 multisig — No single party can move funds, modify parameters, or disable controls
- Evidence anchored dual-chain — Every material action produces an XLS-20 NFT attestation on XRPL + manage_data on Stellar
- Automation handles reporting + covenant tracking — 28 engines covering portfolio, risk, compliance, reconciliation, and monitoring
Platform Infrastructure
Settlement
- Atomic DvP via XRPL escrow
- 9 AMM liquidity pools (XRPL + Stellar)
- DEX orderbook + pathfinding
- Trustline-gated investor access
Governance
- 2-of-3 multisig (standard ops)
- 3-of-3 for config changes
- 1-of-3 emergency freeze
- Signer rotation capability
Risk & Automation
- Monte Carlo VaR (95% + 99%)
- 5-tier stress scenario testing
- 28 automation engines
- Covenant + borrowing base tracking
Evidence
- SHA-256 document hashing
- XLS-20 NFT attestation
- Dual-chain anchoring
- Immutable audit trail
Control Chain
Current Capital Program
$500M
MTN Program Capacity
Authorized
$10M
First Tranche
Active
$4.11M
Current NAV
Verified
250%
Overcollateralization
Exceeds 125% min
$25.75M
Insurance Coverage
Multi-policy
9
Mainnet Accounts
XRPL + Stellar
9
AMM Liquidity Pools
Active
28
Automation Engines
Operational
Demonstrable Controls
| Control | Enforced Where | Mechanism | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unilateral movement prevention | XRPL Multisig | SignerListSet — 2-of-3 required | Active |
| Counterparty settlement risk | Escrow DvP | EscrowCreate with SHA-256 condition | Active |
| Document tampering | Evidence Layer | SHA-256 hash + XLS-20 NFT attestation | Active |
| Covenant breach detection | Borrowing Base Engine | Automated OC ratio monitoring + alerts | Active |
| Emergency trading halt | XRPL GlobalFreeze | 1-of-3 signer freeze trigger | Configured |
| Unauthorized holder prevention | Trustline Gating | XRPL trustline opt-in + Stellar AUTH_REQUIRED | Active |
| Token clawback capability | Stellar | AUTH_REVOCABLE + clawback flags | Active |
7-Layer Architecture
L1
Legal & Control
SPV structure, bond indenture, transfer agent, $25.75M insurance
10 / 10
L2
Custody & Banking
1:1 USD custody, segregated accounts, daily reconciliation
10 / 10
L3
Settlement (XRPL + Stellar)
Atomic DvP, escrow, multisig, AMM pools, trustlines, DEX
41 / 42
L4
Asset Issuance
6 claim tokens, 3 settlement tokens, XLS-20 NFT evidence
Live
L5
Automation & Risk
Portfolio, risk, trading, compliance, reconciliation, monitoring
44 / 48
L6
Ledger Evidence
SHA-256 hashing, XLS-20 NFT attestation, dual-chain anchoring
10 / 10
L7
Boundaries & Regulatory
8 "not-a" disclosures — what the platform is NOT
8 / 8
Settlement — Delivery vs. Payment (DvP)
Atomic Execution
Both legs settle simultaneously or neither does. No counterparty risk window.
SHA-256 Condition
Escrows are locked with cryptographic conditions — not human approval.
NFT Evidence
Every settlement mints an XLS-20 attestation token — immutable proof of execution.
Governance — Multi-Signature Control
2-of-3
Standard Operations
Transfers, issuance, settlement
3-of-3
Configuration Changes
Signer rotation, parameter updates
1-of-3
Emergency Freeze
Instant halt — any signer
Risk Profile
1.8%
VaR (95%)
10,000 Monte Carlo simulations
3.2%
VaR (99%)
Tail risk quantification
0.32
Sharpe Ratio
Risk-adjusted return
250%
Collateral Ratio
2x minimum threshold
Stress Scenarios
| Scenario | Market Shock | Credit Spread | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Case | 0% | +0 bps | Normal |
| Rate Rise (+200 bps) | -5% | +50 bps | Moderate |
| Credit Event | -15% | +200 bps | Elevated |
| 2008-Level Shock | -40% | +600 bps | Severe |
| Issuer Default | -100% | +1000 bps | Critical |
Risk Exposure & Known Gaps
| Exposure Area | Current State | Gap | Mitigation / Path | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidity depth | 9 AMM pools, DEX orderbook | Thin secondary market — no institutional market maker | Engage designated market maker; OTC bilateral desk planned | Moderate |
| Regulatory classification | OPTKAS1-MAIN SPV (Wyoming), SEC-reg transfer agent | No formal SEC/FINRA no-action letter or exemption filing | Reg D 506(c) filing in preparation; securities counsel engaged | Moderate |
| Key-person custody risk | 2-of-3 multisig on XRPL, custodian on assets | Signer set currently concentrated — no independent institutional signer | Onboard independent institutional co-signer (trustee or custodian key) | Elevated |
| External audit | Internal control self-assessment, SHA-256 evidence | No third-party SOC 2 or financial audit completed | SOC 2 Type I engagement scoped; target Q3 2026 | Moderate |
| Operational track record | 128 capabilities live on mainnet | Limited live trading history — no full market cycle | Controlled first-tranche deployment builds track record | Elevated |
Institutional Readiness Scorecard
Institutional Readiness Framework v1.0
| Legal structure in place? | ✓ |
| Custody independently controlled? | ✓ |
| Settlement atomic and auditable? | ✓ |
| Governance multi-party? | ✓ |
| Risk controls quantitative? | ✓ |
| Platform auditable? | ✓ |
| Ready for institutional capital? | ✓ YES |
Scoring Methodology
| Domain | Weight | Scoring Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Structure | 10% | Entity formation, insurance, regulatory filings |
| Custody Controls | 10% | Segregation, reconciliation, custodian independence |
| Settlement | 32% | DvP atomicity, escrow conditions, chain coverage, trustline gates |
| Automation | 23% | Engine count, covenant tracking, reporting pipelines, alert coverage |
| Ledger Evidence | 10% | Hash anchoring, NFT attestation, dual-chain verification |
| Governance | 8% | Multisig tiers, signer rotation, emergency procedures |
| Boundaries | 7% | Access control, trustline gating, freeze capabilities |
Internal control self-assessment. Independent review pending. Score reflects platform capability readiness — not investment suitability, regulatory status, or credit quality.