asgayapedia

Sender H€ Opt-In Rate When Covenant Aborts

Status: Not Started
Priority: Medium
Last Updated: 2026-06-18
Contributors Welcome: Yes

What We Don’t Know

When covenant aborts (BCH drops >7%), what % of senders will accept H€ tokens vs preferring BCH?

Scenario:

María sends €100 remittance
BCH crashes 8% before Elena claims
Covenant aborts to protect Isabel
María gets offered: H€ tokens (stable €100 value) OR BCH (volatile, ~€92 value)

Will she choose H€ or BCH?

Why It Matters

Opt-in rate determines abort scenario UX and pool capital allocation.

If 90% choose H€:

Need significant pool reserve for abort scenarios
UX should default to H€ (explain BCH as advanced option)
Covenant abort becomes seamless (María can still send to Elena using H€)

If 50/50 split:

Need moderate pool reserve
UX must clearly explain both options
Some aborts complete (H€), some fail gracefully (BCH)

If 90% choose BCH:

Minimal pool reserve needed for aborts
H€ minting for aborts is over-engineering
Simplify UX: just deliver BCH when abort happens

Wrong estimate = Either waste pool capital OR frustrated users.

Current Hypothesis

70% of senders will choose H€ when offered, 30% will take BCH.

Reasoning:

Why choose H€:

María already lost €7-8 to volatility (didn’t sign up for this)
H€ preserves €100 value (what she intended to send)
Remittance can still complete (Elena cashes out H€ at merchant)
No additional thinking required (system handles it)

Why choose BCH:

María believes BCH will recover (speculation opportunity)
Wants to accumulate BCH (crypto-positive mindset)
Doesn’t trust H€ mechanism (skepticism)
Prefers direct BCH ownership over token claims

Spanish sender context:

Most senders are NOT crypto enthusiasts (just want cheap remittances)
Losing €7 to volatility feels bad (prefer stable recovery)
Don’t want to think about BCH markets (H€ is simpler)

Hypothesis: Non-crypto-native users strongly prefer H€.

Investigation Method

Step 1: Survey Spanish Sender Personas

Scenario-based questions:

“You sent €100 to your family in Venezuela. Bitcoin Cash crashed 8% before they received it. You’re now offered:

Option A: Receive 100 H€ tokens (stable €100 value, can still send to family)
Option B: Receive BCH (worth ~€92 now, might recover or drop further)

Which do you choose?”

Follow-up:

“Why did you choose that option?”
“Would your answer change if BCH crashed 15% instead of 8%?”
“How much do you know about cryptocurrency?”

Deliverable: Survey responses from 10-20 Spanish remittance senders

Step 2: A/B Test UX Framing

Test A: Default to H€

“Covenant aborted due to volatility. We’ve protected your €100 value by converting to H€ tokens. You can still send to Elena.
[Advanced: I prefer BCH instead]”

Test B: Equal presentation

“Covenant aborted. Choose how to receive your funds:
[ ] H€ tokens (stable €100)
[ ] BCH (current value ~€92, volatile)”

Test C: Default to BCH

“Covenant aborted. You’ll receive BCH (currently ~€92 value).
[Protect value: Convert to H€ tokens instead]”

Hypothesis: Default matters. Test A → 90% H€. Test B → 70% H€. Test C → 40% H€.

Deliverable: Mockups and predicted opt-in rates per UX design

Step 3: Analyze User Psychology

Research:

Loss aversion: Users who already lost €7 want to stop bleeding (→ prefer H€)
Sunk cost fallacy: “I’m already exposed to BCH, might as well keep it” (→ prefer BCH)
Trust in system: Do users trust H€ mechanism or see it as additional risk? (→ affects opt-in)

Deliverable: Behavioral psychology analysis of opt-in drivers

Step 4: Model Capital Requirements

Scenario modeling:

If 10 covenant aborts per week (from 7% drop frequency unknown):

70% opt-in (7 aborts) × €100 = €700 H€ minted for senders
30% BCH (3 aborts) × €92 BCH = €276 BCH delivered

Pool capital needed for sender aborts: €700

Sensitivity:

If 90% opt-in: €900 pool capital
If 50% opt-in: €500 pool capital
If 10% opt-in: €100 pool capital

Deliverable: Capital allocation table based on opt-in rate scenarios

Step 5: Test Actual Behavior in Phase 0

Phase 0 measurement:

Track: # covenant aborts
Track: # users who chose H€ vs BCH
Track: User feedback (did they understand the choice?)

Iterate UX based on data:

If opt-in >90%: Make H€ default (BCH opt-out)
If opt-in 50-70%: Keep equal presentation
If opt-in <30%: Question if H€ for aborts is worth the complexity

Deliverable: Real usage data from Phase 0 trials

Success Criterion

This unknown is answered when:

✅ We have data:
- Survey responses from target users
- UX testing on different default presentations
- Behavioral psychology analysis
✅ We can estimate:
- “X% of senders will choose H€ when covenant aborts”
- “Reasoning: [loss aversion, trust, UX framing]”
- “Pool capital needed: €Y for sender aborts”
✅ We design UX accordingly:
- Choose default (H€ or BCH or neutral)
- Allocate pool capital (sender vs merchant split)
- Plan for Phase 0 measurement

Answered = “X% choose H€ because [reasons], here’s our UX design and capital allocation.”

Contributor Guidance

Skills needed:

Survey design (scenario-based questions)
UX design (mockups, default choice testing)
Behavioral psychology (loss aversion, decision framing)
Financial modeling (capital requirements)

Estimated effort: 3-5 hours (research + survey), 2 hours (mockups)

How to start:

Create simple survey with scenario questions
Share in Spanish remittance communities (Facebook groups, forums)
Analyze responses for opt-in patterns
Document findings in GitHub issue or email rufitnes@proton.me

Quick contribution: Even informal interviews help! Ask 3-5 friends who might send remittances what they’d choose.

Edge Cases

What if user doesn’t respond in time?

Covenant aborts automatically
Default to H€ or BCH? (Must decide)
Notify user afterward: “We protected your value with H€”

What if pool exhausted when abort happens?

Can only deliver BCH (fallback)
User sees: “Pool capacity exhausted, receiving BCH instead”
This is graceful degradation (system still works)

What if user later regrets choice?

If chose H€: Can burn tokens to get BCH back (flexibility)
If chose BCH: Can manually convert to H€ later? (Probably not - minting restricted to covenant endpoints)
Decision has consequences but H€ path is reversible

These edge cases inform UX design.

🏠 Home

↑ Unknowns

📖 Glossary

This site is open source. Improve this page.