Each framework is built to support real decisions: what to monitor, what changes the view, and where responsibility sits when systems scale or fail.
Payment stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and tokenized yield products look identical in a wallet but diverge by reserve structure, redemption mechanics, and stress behavior.
Reserve-backed tokens designed for par redemption. Narrow reserve requirements, no yield to the holder, money-like supervisory treatment under GENIUS. The operating constraint: reserves must be liquid enough to honor redemptions during a stress run without selling assets at a loss.
Bank liabilities in token form. They inherit deposit insurance, bank supervision, and the credit-creation mechanics of bank balance sheets. They are a fundamentally different object from reserve-backed stablecoins because the issuing bank lends against the deposits, creating credit that stablecoin reserves do not.
Tokenized money-market fund shares, Treasury wrappers, and automated sweep programs. These are investment products, not payment instruments. A stablecoin that cannot pay yield creates a vacuum that adjacent products fill: whoever controls the default sweep (the wallet, the exchange, the platform) captures the yield margin.
| Object | What it does | What backs it | What breaks under stress | The question that matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payment stablecoin | Settlement cash with narrow reserves | Reserve pool; issuer redemption | Reserve concentration; redemption bottleneck | Can the gateway honor par redemption when a single custodian fails? |
| Tokenized deposit | Bank deposit on token rails | Bank balance sheet; deposit insurance | Balance-sheet capacity; settlement freeze risk | Can the issuing bank absorb losses without halting token-rail settlement? |
| Yield wrapper | Investment or cash-management product | Fund NAV; liquidation value | NAV deviation; liquidity mismatch | Does the wrapper hold value when the underlying reprices or liquidity dries up? |
Same wallet UX. Different rights, backstops, and failure sequences.
A five-dimension scoring framework measuring regulatory intensity at the gateway layer across licensing, reserve transparency, freeze capability, compliance infrastructure, and geographic restrictions. The CLII measures who is regulated, not who is fragile: three Tier 1 gateways with near-identical scores (0.82 to 0.92) produced opposite outcomes during SVB based on entity-specific banking exposure, not token properties.
A nine-category diligence framework for testing whether a tokenized product preserves the legal rights, operational resilience, and economic behavior of the traditional asset under stress, covering rights parity, recordkeeping, auditability, and settlement finality.
Measures where deposit balances sit and how they move. Tracks which bank balance sheets grow, which shrink, and how stablecoin reserve growth changes aggregate credit creation capacity. The policy question: does migration from deposits into stablecoin reserves shrink the lending base that monetary policy operates through?
Classifies who controls the operating layer right now. Ten signals across routing defaults, sweep ownership, hold authority, fee structures, and disclosure obligations reveal who captures economics, who owns liability, and where the regulator can actually attach obligations in the current regime.
| Paper | Track | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Routing the Dollar | A | Under Fed conference review; notification pending |
| Minimum Viable Equivalence Packs | A | Public on SSRN |
| Dollar v3 / The Control Layer War | A | Dollar v3 public; full Control Layer War memo available on request |
| Adaptive Tokenomics | B | Public on SSRN |
| Operational Risk in Token Economies | B | Public on SSRN |
| Tokenomics as Institutional Design | B | Final draft; targeting Frontiers in Blockchain |
| GeoDePIN | B | Final draft; targeting Blockchain: Research and Applications |
| Evidence-led | Every claim ties to a source, a threshold, or a tested condition before it ships. Replication packages accompany each paper so the work can be rerun and challenged. |
|---|---|
| Scenario architecture | Decision trees ranked by priority, stress paths with named thresholds, and explicit criteria for what should change the conclusion. Ensembles calibrated to real costs, observed failure rates, and documented market behavior. |
| Monitoring and control design | Custody scoring, failure-mode testing, and concentration tracking, each linked to a named decision owner. Drift detection tracks whether controls hold after initial approval; when they don't, the framework specifies who acts and what triggers escalation. |
| Published on readiness | Work ships when the evidence supports real operating decisions, with versioned manuscripts and public replication code. |
Two research tracks, one thesis. Both converge on the same conclusion: the operator layer determines outcomes that asset-level analysis cannot observe.
My research program holds itself to the standard it applies to the systems it studies: claims trace to sources, frameworks are tested against adversarial conditions, and boundaries are named explicitly. The site works the same way: transparent structure, named authorship, and evidence the reader can check.