The current working architecture separates the regulatory reserve, the strategic basalt RWA layer, the settlement network and the distribution/liquidity infrastructure.

Four layers instead of one reserve story

The emerging FYC business model consists of four distinct economic layers.

1. Regulatory Reserve

When FYC is issued against incoming funds, those funds are not revenue.

They support the FYC liability and must remain available within the applicable reserve and redemption architecture.

In simple terms:

EUR 1 million funding → EUR 1 million reserve assets → 1 million FYC issued

The EUR 1 million is not profit.

This sounds obvious, but it is fundamental to understanding stablecoin economics.

The reserve may generate permitted income, but the reserve principal itself belongs to the financial architecture supporting the token.

2. Strategic Basalt RWA Layer

Separate from that financial reserve, we are exploring a strategic basalt layer.

Potential components could eventually include:

• basalt inventory;
• enforceable supply rights;
• warehouse rights;
• verified receivables;
• commodity documentation;
• MRV data;
• and potentially other clearly defined economic rights.

The important point is that these assets do not automatically have to become the liquid redemption reserve.

Our settlement strategy already describes basalt as the genesis commodity, first source of invoices, strategic economic support asset and potential reserve component — while stressing that these functions are different from one another. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

This leads us toward the term:

Basalt-native

rather than simply:

Basalt-backed

The distinction matters.

Three revenue engines

Once the layers are separated, the economics become much easier to understand.

We currently see three potential recurring revenue engines for FYC.

1. Float Economics

The first is created by the amount of FYC that remains in circulation.

If companies acquire FYC for settlement and maintain balances within the network, the issuer has a corresponding reserve base.

Subject to the final legal and reserve architecture, eligible portions of that reserve may generate permitted income.

Conceptually:

Average FYC Circulation × Effective Reserve Yield = Reserve Income

This resembles part of the economics behind conventional stablecoins.

But we do not believe FYC should depend on this alone.

Our existing strategy deliberately requires the commercial model to remain assessable even if reserve income is assumed to be zero. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

That is an important discipline.

Interest rates change. Reserve rules change. Yield should improve the business model — not be the only reason the business works.

2. Flow Economics

This is where FYC becomes more interesting.

Imagine EUR 10 million of FYC circulating in the network.

If those tokens are used only once per year, they generate roughly EUR 10 million of settlement activity.

But if the same circulating FYC is used twelve times during the year:

EUR 10 million circulation × 12 turns = EUR 120 million settlement volume.

Nothing requires EUR 120 million of new tokens to be issued.

The same settlement asset is being reused.

Consider a simplified chain:

Importer → Balkan Basalt → Logistics Provider → Processor → Distributor → Agricultural Buyer

The first transaction may bring FYC into circulation.

The subsequent transactions make the existing FYC economically productive.

This is why we increasingly view the FYC Reuse Ratio as one of the project’s most important future KPIs.

Our current strategy already defines reuse as FYC received through real trade and subsequently used for another verified commercial obligation, rather than simply counting exchange turnover or internal transfers. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

The distinction can be summarised in one sentence:

Time monetises the float. Velocity monetises the network.

3. Infrastructure Economics

The third revenue engine may eventually be the most strategically important.

FYC is not intended to be merely a token.

Around the token we envisage a settlement network providing services such as:

• corporate onboarding;
• KYB and sanctions controls;
• invoice processing;
• treasury APIs;
• ERP integrations;
• programmable escrow;
• conversion routing;
• transaction reporting;
• commodity verification;
• accounting exports;
• and potentially specialised trade and MRV data.

Companies can pay for these services independently of any reserve income.

That creates a much broader business model:

Subscriptions + APIs + Escrow + Compliance + Treasury Services + Transaction Services

The existing strategy already anticipates this separation between the FYC settlement asset and the surrounding settlement network. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

This is important because it turns FYC from a token project into a potential financial infrastructure business.

What a real FYC transaction could look like

Consider a hypothetical EUR 1 million basalt invoice.

A European buyer purchases or sources:

1,000,000 FYC

for settlement.

The corresponding EUR 1 million enters the applicable reserve structure.

The FYC is transferred to Balkan Basalt against the commercial invoice.

Balkan Basalt now has several choices.

It can:

Redeem the FYC.

Convert it through an approved liquidity provider.

Hold it as treasury liquidity.

Or:

Reuse it to pay another commercial obligation.

From the perspective of network economics, reuse is particularly valuable.

If Balkan Basalt pays EUR 200,000 equivalent in FYC to a logistics provider, and that provider subsequently pays another supplier, the same FYC liquidity supports several genuine transactions.

That is the beginning of a settlement network.

The difference between a payment rail and a settlement economy

This distinction is strategically important.

Consider two models.

Model A

EUR → FYC → merchant → EUR

The token exists only briefly between fiat entry and fiat exit.

That can still be useful.

But economically, FYC behaves mainly like another payment rail.

Now consider:

Model B

EUR → FYC → producer → logistics provider → processor → distributor → supplier

Here FYC begins to function as working settlement liquidity inside a commercial network.

That is a much more interesting model.

The objective therefore should not simply be:

How many FYC can we issue?

A better question is:

How much genuine economic activity can each FYC support before it leaves the network?

Three scale scenarios

To make the concept tangible, we have developed three illustrative scenarios.

These are not forecasts. They are modelling exercises designed to understand the economics.

Our working assumptions currently include 12 annual circulation turns and a 10 basis point net settlement contribution after variable partner costs — assumptions also used in the current Settlement, Distribution and Liquidity Strategy. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

EUR 10 million average FYC circulation

At twelve annual turns:

EUR 120 million annual settlement volume

Illustrative recurring contribution:

EUR 0.63 million

Illustrative operating result:

EUR –0.57 million

This would primarily be a Proof-of-Network Phase.

The objective would be to prove real settlements, reliable redemption, repeat users and commercial reuse.

EUR 100 million average circulation

At twelve annual turns:

EUR 1.2 billion annual settlement volume

Illustrative recurring contribution:

EUR 4.3 million

Illustrative operating result:

EUR +0.8 million

At this scale, the network could begin to resemble a sustainable financial infrastructure business.

EUR 1 billion average circulation

At twelve annual turns:

EUR 12 billion annual settlement volume

Illustrative recurring contribution:

EUR 38 million

Illustrative operating result:

EUR +26 million

Again, these numbers are not projections.

Their purpose is to demonstrate something more fundamental:

Scale comes from both circulation and reuse.

Why the basalt mine matters so much

A new stablecoin normally faces a difficult question:

Why should anyone use it?

This is the classic cold-start problem.

FYC may have an unusual answer.

We already have a potential first economic corridor:

Basalt.

An operating commodity can create:

• suppliers;
• buyers;
• logistics;
• distributors;
• processing;
• agricultural applications;
• ERW projects;
• and recurring commercial invoices.

Our strategy therefore starts not with speculative exchange turnover but with one controlled basalt settlement loop before moving into adjacent commodity sectors. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

If that works, the network could gradually expand from:

Basalt

to

soil inputs and agriculture

to

ERW and CDR

to

minerals and aggregates

to

logistics and warehousing

and ultimately selected broader commodity markets.

That corridor-based approach is already embedded in our development roadmap. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

Distribution also has a price

Another lesson from our recent work is that even a technically sound stablecoin does not distribute itself.

Liquidity providers, market makers, institutional distributors, custodians and integration partners all provide economic services.

Those services have a cost.

Our current principle is therefore that partners should be compensated for measurable contributions:

• real settlement activity;
• conversion availability;
• executable liquidity;
• integrations;
• institutional access;
• verified enterprise services.

They should not simply be rewarded for passively holding FYC.

And any revenue sharing should be based on identifiable service revenue rather than token issuance proceeds or gross token circulation. That principle is already built into our Distribution and Liquidity Strategy. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

The real asset we may be building

This leads to perhaps the most important change in our thinking.

The long-term asset may not be the FYC token itself.

It may be the:

FYC Settlement Network

A network consisting of:

• verified corporate participants;
• recurring trade flows;
• settlement balances;
• liquidity providers;
• distributors;
• banking relationships;
• treasury integrations;
• commodity data;
• compliance infrastructure;
• and reusable settlement liquidity.

From that perspective, three metrics become especially important.

Average FYC Circulation

How much settlement liquidity remains in the network?

Genuine Settlement Volume

How much real economic activity is processed?

FYC Reuse Ratio

How much received FYC is used again for another genuine commercial obligation?

Those three numbers may ultimately tell us much more about the success of FYC than exchange trading volume.

Our current working thesis

The architecture we are now exploring can be summarised as follows:

Basalt as the Genesis RWA

Liquid Assets as the Redemption Reserve

Commodity Trade as the Settlement Engine

Reserve + Services as the Revenue Engine

Distribution as the Scaling Engine

This leads us to a positioning that we currently find increasingly compelling:

FYC — A Basalt-Native RWA Settlement Currency

Importantly, this remains a development thesis.

FYC has not yet been launched under this architecture. The final token definition, reserve composition, redemption mechanism, jurisdiction and regulatory classification remain subject to legal, economic and supervisory analysis.

Our current strategy explicitly keeps the choice between different potential regulated structures open and treats basalt’s final reserve role as subject to valuation, liquidity and regulatory confirmation. FYC_Settlement_Distribution_and…

That uncertainty is not something we want to hide.

It is precisely why we created the FYC Journal — The Making of a Stablecoin.

Building the model in public

The next step is not to declare the model finished.

It is to test it.

We now want to develop the FYC workstreams around:

Reserve Lab

Can the proposed reserve structure provide reliable redemption and liquidity?

Distribution & Liquidity Lab

Can we build institutional access and independent conversion capacity?

Business Model Lab

Can Float, Flow and Infrastructure Economics create a sustainable business?

Basalt Settlement Pilot

Will real companies actually use and reuse FYC for genuine commercial transactions?

Those questions will determine the next iteration of FYC.

And we intend to document the answers as the project develops.

The current takeaway

Our thinking has evolved from a relatively simple question —

Can a stablecoin be anchored in basalt?

— toward a much broader one:

Can a real commodity become the starting point for a scalable digital settlement network?

That is the experiment we now find most interesting.

And that is increasingly what The Making of FYC is about.