đź“– Unfamiliar terms? See the glossary for definitions.
The mechanism that powers H€ and HAu works for any measurable asset with a reliable oracle. Gold and Euro are just the beginning.
Why these restrictions exist: See Requirements for the compliance and price stability requirements that drive this design.
BCH volatility is a problem. Fiat inflation is a problem. Solution: Stabilize BCH against real-world value instead of government currencies.
Traditional stablecoins: Peg to USD or EUR (still dependent on central banks).
Universal stability: Peg to commodities, energy, or purchasing power baskets (independent of policy).
Critical for compliance: H€/HAu tokens can ONLY be minted at specific moments in covenant lifecycle. This is not a general-purpose stablecoin—it’s a volatility protection mechanism for users who didn’t sign up for BCH exposure.
Two scenarios where minting occurs:
Option 1: Burn and Wait (Full Value)
Option 2: Sell to Liquidity Provider (Immediate, Small Discount)
Option 3: P2P Market (Negotiated)
Phase 0: Founder provides liquidity (Option 2 available)
Phase 1+: Crowdfunded bull pool, competitive LP market emerges
Natural LPs: Onboarders (earn VES, want H€ stability + spread income)
Why onboarders are perfect LPs:
If pool exhausted: Merchant keeps BCH (graceful degradation). Existing token holders unaffected.
Why this matters: MarĂa didn’t buy BCH to hold BCH—she bought it to send a remittance. H€ preserves the €100 value and allows remittance to complete.
These scenarios do NOT allow H€/HAu minting:
Only at covenant lifecycle endpoints (successful merchant cashout OR sender abort due to 7% drop).
H€/HAu are NOT:
H€/HAu ARE:
Legal framing:
“H€ and HAu tokens are volatility protection instruments that allow Asgaya users to complete remittance transactions despite Bitcoin Cash price movements. They are not money, but rather claim tickets backed by verifiable on-chain AnyHedge contracts, mintable only at covenant lifecycle endpoints, redeemable for BCH at user’s discretion.”
This keeps Asgaya out of “issuing securities” or “money transmission” regulatory territory.
| Token | Pegged To | Oracle Source | Why Merchants Choose It |
|---|---|---|---|
| H€ (Heuro) | Euro (EUR) | GeneralProtocol, CoinGecko | Familiar unit, easy mental math, quick VES conversion |
| HAu (How) | Gold (XAU) | LBMA, CME, COMEX | Universal value, hedges ALL fiat inflation, 24/7 trading |
Oracle Strategy (Primary + Fallback):
Both H€ and HAu require redundant oracle sources for reliability:
H€ Oracle Chain:
HAu Oracle Chain:
Note: HAu has one extra oracle dependency vs H€. If EUR-denominated gold oracles exist (needs research), HAu complexity reduces. See Price Discovery for detailed oracle research.
Capital allocation: €3K founder pool. Merchant velocity determines actual lock.
The primary hypothesis:
Asgaya’s real goal is to bootstrap BCH adoption through remittances. As BCH becomes tied to real-world commerce (merchants accepting it, recipients using it), price volatility should naturally decrease.
If this hypothesis is correct: Merchants won’t need H€/HAu. They’ll happily hold BCH because it’s stable enough for business. The stability layer becomes unnecessary.
The stability layer is Plan B - insurance for the scenario where:
This is a CONDITIONAL feature. It only matters if both conditions are true:
| Outcome | Stability Layer Needed? | What This Means |
|---|---|---|
| Asgaya fails | ❌ No users, irrelevant | Back to drawing board |
| Asgaya succeeds + BCH stabilizes | ❌ Merchants hold BCH directly | Mission accomplished! |
| Asgaya succeeds + BCH stays volatile | ✅ Merchants need H€/HAu | Stability layer activates |
Phase 0 tests both: We build H€/HAu and observe merchant behavior. If merchants don’t want stability tokens (because BCH is stable enough), that’s excellent news - it means the primary hypothesis worked.
The vision: BCH as stable money for the world (via real-world use).
The insurance: Stability layer if that doesn’t happen.
The long shot: H-basket and post-fiat tokens if even H€/HAu isn’t enough.
The AnyHedge mechanism works for any asset with a reliable oracle. However, oracle availability determines what we can ship when.
What we’re actually building:
Why these first: Oracle infrastructure exists, battle-tested, 24/7 availability. We just integrate existing feeds.
Feasible if BCH volatility persists and demand exists:
Single-asset tokens (require oracle adapters):
Challenge: Integration complexity. These oracles exist but aren’t crypto-native. Requires custom oracle adapters.
Composite index token (natural evolution):
How H-basket works:
Bull pool allocates capital to multiple assets:
- 50% H€ (Euro stability)
- 30% HAu (Gold stability)
- 20% H-COPPER (Commodity exposure)
H-basket = 50% H€ + 30% HAu + 20% H-COPPER
Merchant mints H-basket → gets diversified exposure
→ Uses existing H-asset oracles (no new infrastructure)
→ Composition emerges from bull capital allocation
→ No governance needed (market-driven)
Why this is elegant: Bulls vote with capital. If they won’t long an asset, it doesn’t get in the basket. Composition is market-discovered, not governance-decided.
Still conditional: Only needed if BCH volatility persists AND merchants want diversification beyond H€/HAu.
Not part of Asgaya roadmap:
If someone wants to build decentralized CPI measurement infrastructure and integrate it, H-CPI could theoretically join the bull pool’s supported assets. But that’s a separate project, not something Asgaya needs to solve.
This is our fallback scenario, not our primary goal.
Our hypothesis: As BCH becomes tied to real-world commerce (remittances, merchant payments), price volatility will soften significantly. If this happens, the stability layer becomes less necessary—users will hold BCH directly instead of H€/HAu tokens.
However: There’s no evidence this will happen. BCH might remain volatile indefinitely. If so, we need a long-term stability solution that doesn’t depend on fiat currencies or centralized stablecoins.
The long-term vision: Instead of pegging to EUR/USD (government-controlled), peg to real-world commodities, energy, and purchasing power baskets that governments cannot manipulate.
Phase 0: Test H€ and HAu (prove mechanism works with existing oracles)
Phase 1: Add more fiat-pegged options if demand exists (still existing oracles)
Phase 2+: Explore commodity tokens if oracle integration becomes practical
Research: H-basket/H-CPI as separate decentralized oracle project (if someone wants to build it)
Single-asset tokens (Tier 2 - existing oracles, need adapters):
Composite index token (Tier 2 - natural evolution):
Custom oracle tokens (Tier 3 - separate research project):
Remember: All of this only matters if BCH stays volatile despite real-world adoption. If BCH stabilizes naturally, none of these are needed
This is all conditional on BCH staying volatile despite adoption.
Traditional finance: Store value in USD/EUR → central banks can inflate → savings eroded by policy
Crypto (current): Store value in BCH/BTC → volatile (±15-20% monthly) → can’t plan or save predictably
Stability layer progression (if BCH doesn’t stabilize naturally):
H-basket example (if we get there):
Bulls allocate capital to multiple assets:
→ Merchants can choose diversification over single-asset exposure
→ Composition emerges from market (no central planning)
→ Diversified stability across fiat, gold, commodities
The paradigm shift: From “stable vs fiat” to “stable vs real-world value.”
But remember: This entire progression assumes BCH fails to stabilize. If real-world commerce makes BCH stable enough, merchants will just hold BCH. That’s the preferred outcome.
What we need (existing infrastructure):
H€ (Euro):
HAu (Gold):
Why these work: Oracle infrastructure already exists, battle-tested, 24/7 global markets.
Future assets (not Phase 0): Commodities (copper, oil) require oracle adapters. Purchasing power baskets (H-basket, H-CPI) would require building custom decentralized data collection - a research project separate from Asgaya.
Key insight: Pool size depends on merchant velocity, not token supply.
Scenario: 10 merchants, €100/month each, weekly VES conversion
Volume: €1000/month
Lock: €250 avg (weekly turnover)
Pool needed: €3000 supports 120 merchants at this velocity
Scenario: 10 merchants, €100/month each, monthly hold
Volume: €1000/month
Lock: €1000 avg (monthly turnover)
Pool needed: €3000 supports 30 merchants
Phase 0: High velocity (money tight, dump fast). €3K pool sufficient.
Phase 1: Crowdfund bull pool (€50K+) when demand proven.
Phase 0 (€3K founder capital):
The bull pool approves which assets merchants can mint (H€, HAu) and dynamically allocates capital based on demand.
No split needed:
Why unified is better: Splitting pools (70% H€, 30% HAu) wastes capital. If all merchants want H€, the HAu allocation sits idle. Unified pool maximizes capital efficiency.
The magic: Same €3K backs multiple asset types via velocity. Not locked 1:1.
Asgaya is permissionless: Anyone can contribute BCH capital to the bull pool and participate in profits (or losses).
Initial setup:
Economics:
When Phase 0 proves demand:
Natural participants:
Profit/loss distribution:
đź“ť PLACEHOLDER: This section needs expansion with:
Why onboarders are the killer app for LPs:
Phase 0 (Remittances):
Phase 1 (Multi-Corridor):
Phase 2 (Post-Fiat):
Phase 3 (Ecosystem):
Comparing oracle reliability:
| Asset | Market Cap | Trading Hours | Price Sources | Manipulation Risk | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gold | $12T | 24/7 global | LBMA, CME, COMEX, Shanghai | Very low (massive market) | Centuries |
| EUR/BCH | ~$1B | Exchange hours | Kraken, Coinbase, Binance | Medium (smaller market) | Years |
| Oil | $2T | 24/5 | NYMEX, ICE, Brent | Low (large, liquid) | Decades |
| Copper | $200B | 24/5 | CME, LME | Medium (smaller than gold) | Decades |
| Electricity | Varies | Regional | Spot markets | High (regional, manipulation) | Years |
| Basket | N/A | Manual survey | Custom | Medium (survey quality) | New |
Gold wins: Largest market, longest history, 24/7 trading, multiple authoritative sources, manipulation-resistant.
For Phase 0: H€ (familiar) + HAu (reliable oracle). Test both. Let data decide.
Where minting happens: Venezuela (merchant creates contract like making coupons).
Where Asgaya operates: Spain (bulletin board, information service).
If merchant in Venezuela mints H€/HAu:
This is why merchant-side minting matters: Jurisdiction arbitrage without dishonesty.
Phase 0 (what we’re building):
Phase 2+ (if BCH stays volatile and demand exists):
The H-basket insight: Don’t build decentralized CPI infrastructure. Instead, let the bull pool’s capital allocation decisions define the basket. If bulls support H€ (50%), HAu (30%), and H-COPPER (20%), that IS the basket. Market-driven, emergent, no central planning needed.
Asgaya’s role:
Preferred outcome: BCH stabilizes through real-world use. Stability layer becomes unnecessary. Merchants hold BCH directly
| 🏠Home | ↑ The Mechanism | 📖 Glossary |
Related: Wallet · Bulletin Board · Nostr · Notification Bot