Asgaya Remittances: Inefficient by Design
The Constraint: Seller risk vs custody/compliance
Traditional escrow held client fiat → triggered custody regulation (MiCA/PSD2). Asgaya’s payment-first model avoids this: the seller locks their own BCH only after receiving the sender’s fiat. No entity ever holds client funds.
The Decision: Payment-First + Two-Step Settlement
- Sender pays seller via Bizum → seller receives fiat BEFORE funding covenant
- Seller locks BCH into covenant (€100 face value + €7 buffer from their inventory)
- Covenant requires TWO signatures to claim: recipient + merchant (in-person verification)
- If unclaimed after 8 hours → BCH goes to the sender wallet
Note on 8-hour window: Phase 0 hypothesis based on RS062 data (99.45% success at 4-hour windows) + stability layer protecting senders on abort. Allows gathering complete claim-timing data without excessive covenant failures.
The Trade-off
What We Gain
✅ No custody (seller never locks BCH before receiving fiat)
✅ No intermediation (no entity holds funds between parties)
✅ Legal recourse (bank transfer traceable, court precedent)
- This is how ecommerce works: you pay first and then the merchant delivers the product
✅ Seller always BCH-neutral or profitable (received fiat first)
What We Lose
❌ Recipient friction (must go to merchant in person within 8 hours)
❌ Inefficient UX (extra step vs direct wallet delivery)
❌ Merchant dependency (system fails if no merchants available)
Why This Choice
This inefficiency is intentional. We’re betting recipients accept the friction because:
- They’re buying groceries anyway (picking up money = shopping trip)
- Merchant provides cash or holds BCH (recipient’s choice)
- Right kind of merchants (neighborhood shops, high foot traffic)
- They might onboard merchants themselves (recipient agency)
But this is an assumption. Phase 0 validates whether recipients actually tolerate this UX.
Economic Argument: Seller Protection
Even if BCH price crashes past the 7% buffer:
- Seller received €100.50 fiat via Bizum (€100 + 0.5% seller fee)
- Seller locked €107 BCH into covenant (€100 face + €7 buffer)
- BCH drops 10% → covenant aborts, returns BCH to sender
- Seller keeps €100.50 fiat (already received, BCH-neutral)
- Seller can buy back BCH at current (lower) market rate → sold BCH above market, profitable trade
Payment-first + abort mechanism ensures sellers are always BCH-neutral or in profit.
Payment Timeout: 10 Minutes (Phase 0 Hypothesis)
After sender creates covenant and receives payment details:
- Sender leaves Asgaya app
- Sender pays via Bizum/bank transfer, in person at a merchant
- 10 minutes is plenty (most transfers complete in 1-2 minutes)
- Sender can cancel if delayed
Note: This timeout is a Phase 0 starting assumption, validated by sender behavior data. May be adjusted based on real-world usage patterns.
Phase 0 Validation
Open Questions:
- Do recipients actually go to merchants within 8 hours?
- What % of covenants abort due to unclaimed expiry?
- Do “right kind of merchants” (groceries, convenience stores) drive adoption?
- Does in-person verification feel like friction or safety?
- Do recipients onboard their own merchants (neighborhood shops)?
Success criteria:
- <20% covenant abort rate due to unclaimed expiry
- Recipients report in-person verification as “safe” not “annoying”
- Merchant density improves over time (recipients onboard neighbors)
Why We Can’t Use Traditional Escrow
Traditional escrow flow:
Sender → Escrow (locks BCH) → Wait for payment confirmation → Release to recipient
Problems:
- ❌ Custody: Escrow operator holds client funds (even temporarily) = custodian
- ❌ Licensing: Custody triggers MiCA CASP (EU), PSD2 Payment Institution (EU)
- ❌ Defeats Asgaya’s value proposition: Compliance WITHOUT licensing
Payment-first flow:
Sender → Pays Bizum → Seller receives fiat → Seller locks BCH → Covenant → Recipient claims (merchant co-sign)
Advantages:
- ✅ No custody at any point: Seller controls their BCH until covenant funded
- ✅ No intermediation: No entity routes payments between sender and recipient
- ✅ Seller protected: Already has fiat, can’t lose money
- ✅ Legal recourse: Bank transfer traceable (just like ecommerce purchases)
The Bet We’re Making
Hypothesis: Recipients tolerate inefficiency because the alternative (expensive legacy remittances) is worse.
Western Union:
- Costs 6-8% in fees + hidden spreads
- Takes 1-2 days to arrive
- Requires going to physical location anyway (pickup)
Asgaya:
- Costs <1% (transparent seller fee)
- Takes 10 minutes to 8 hours (recipient’s choice)
- Requires going to physical location (merchant)
The trade: Recipients already go somewhere to pick up money. If that “somewhere” is a neighborhood merchant where they shop anyway, the friction becomes negligible.
If we’re wrong: Phase 0 abort rate will be >50%, recipients will complain, adoption fails. We adjust or pivot.
If we’re right: Recipients prefer cheaper + inconvenient over expensive + convenient. Merchant network becomes moat.
Status: Phase 0 Validation
Last Updated: 2026-06-21
Confidence: Medium (strong rationale, unproven in practice)
—
Navigation