Centralization Rationale
Settlement Layer Centralization
Why WRAPX (Validator) Controls Withdrawals:
Real-world scenario: ───────────────────── Carrier A withdraws 1M USDC BUT they have 500k outstanding settlement with Carrier B PROBLEM: Carrier B cannot settle now! Solution: WRAPX permit system ──────────────────────────────────── Carrier A requests withdrawal → WRAPX checks via COMMTRADE: ✓ No outstanding disputes (COMMTRADE confirms) ✓ No pending settlements (COMMTRADE confirms) ✓ Regulatory compliance (KYC status current) ✗ Large withdrawal → manual review Only after approval → WRAPX issues permit signature → withdrawal succeeds
Why Batch Settlements by WRAPX (Validator):
Without batching (direct OSS/BSS → blockchain): ─────────────────────────────────────────────── 1000 carriers × 100 transactions each = 100,000 individual blockchain transfers Cost: Prohibitively expensive in gas Risk: Some transfers fail = inconsistent state No optimization possible With multi-tier architecture (OSS/BSS → COMMTRADE → WRAPX → blockchain): ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TIER 1 (OSS/BSS): Generates CDRs for all voice traffic TIER 2 (COMMTRADE): • Aggregates CDRs • Calculates net positions • Sends individual settlement instructions to WRAPX TIER 3 (WRAPX): • Receives individual settlement instructions from COMMTRADE • Batches multiple instructions together • Optimizes with netting algorithm • Pushes single atomic batch to blockchain TIER 4 (Blockchain): Executes batched settlement Result: 100,000 CDRs → 5,000 settlement instructions → 200 batched blockchain txs Cost: 95% gas savings Risk: All-or-nothing = consistent state Benefit: COMMTRADE handles complex rate logic, WRAPX optimizes blockchain efficiency
Why KYC Required:
Regulatory requirement: ────────────────────── Telecom settlements = financial services Multi-jurisdiction carriers = AML compliance Large transaction volumes = monitoring required Fraudulent carriers = industry risk Solution: KYC before wallet creation ──────────────────────────────────── Every carrier verified before COMMTRADE integration Telecom OSS/BSS integration = identity verification WRAPX maintains KYC status Ongoing monitoring via COMMTRADE suspicious activity detection
Why Multi Tier Architecture (OSS/BSS → COMMTRADE → WRAPX → Blockchain):
Single-tier approach problems: ────────────────────────────── ❌ Every CDR becomes a blockchain transaction = cost prohibitive ❌ Rate logic on-chain = complex, expensive, hard to update ❌ OSS/BSS systems can't directly interact with blockchain ❌ No optimization layer for gas efficiency ❌ Dispute resolution requires on-chain arbitration Multi-tier benefits: ──────────────────── ✅ TIER 1 (OSS/BSS): Legacy systems work as-is, no blockchain knowledge needed ✅ TIER 2 (COMMTRADE): • Complex rate logic off-chain, flexible, updateable • Aggregates CDRs and calculates net positions • Sends individual settlement instructions (not batches) ✅ TIER 3 (WRAPX): • Receives individual instructions from COMMTRADE • Batches instructions for blockchain efficiency • Gas optimization through netting algorithm • Dispute handling and permit management ✅ TIER 4 (Blockchain): Immutable settlement record, transparent, auditable Cost efficiency: ─────────────── 1M CDRs/month → COMMTRADE aggregates and sends instructions → WRAPX batches into ~ X blockchain tx/day = 30X blockchain txs/month Without tiers: 1M blockchain txs/month (33,333x/X more expensive!)
Investment Layer Centralization
Why Investment Manager Controls Fulfillment:
Capital efficiency scenario: ─────────────────────────── 100 investors deposit throughout the month Each wants immediate shares BUT only deploy capital when large deal available Solution: Async fulfillment ─────────────────────────── Investors request deposits (assets secured) Investment Manager waits for optimal deal Fulfills all deposits together when deal ready Capital efficiency: 100% deployed vs. 20% idle
Why Investment Manager Controls Timing:
Risk management scenario: ──────────────────────── High volatility period in telecom markets Investor requests redemption BUT withdrawing now = selling at loss Solution: Managed redemption ──────────────────────────── Investment Manager delays fulfillment Waits for markets to stabilize Fulfills when profitable exit available Protects investor returns