GvK Settlement Suite · Bax Innovation

GvK Sandbox Scorecard

Due diligence for settlement pilots · paper Table 3

Five tests a sandbox authority can require before an instant, atomic or tokenised settlement pilot.

Enter the applicant's current and proposed design. The scorecard computes each test from the framework's two results: the rate elasticity of drag equals its collateral share, and faster settlement that destroys netting can cut float cost while raising balance-sheet cost. The assessor then records whether the applicant's evidence meets each test. The default figures are the paper's calibrated T+0 scenario, not observed data.

Proposal design

LineCurrentProposed
Latency to finality τ s
Locked capital K USD
Direct fees USD / month
Risk and fraud reserve USD / month
Energy and hardware USD / month

Scientific notation accepted (1.8e11). Default values: the paper's T+0 scenario on the calibrated DTCC seed (τ 1 day to 10 s, locked capital ×10). Inputs stay in your browser.

Computed GvK tests

Implied η
0.254
Window-basis collateral
-99.9%
Carry-basis collateral
+900.0%
Drag, carry basis
3.67 → 29.37 bps
Proposed velocity
1.00e-1 Hz

Rate stress, proposed design (carry basis)

Policy rateDrag (bps)Collateral share = elasticity
0.0%0.81430.0%
5.5%30.2897.3%
Conditional: evidence outstanding

Five dimensions · computed flag and assessor evidence

Liquidity and float

Typical failure. Collateral saving claimed on transaction float alone.

Required test. Report collateral cost on the window basis and the 30-day carry basis; state the implied η.

Bases disagree in sign: window cost -99.9%, carry cost +900.0%. A float-only claim overstates the saving.

Netting preservation

Typical failure. Atomic delivery-versus-payment removes the netting window, raising gross liquidity needs.

Required test. Document the liquidity-saving mechanism (queues, offsetting, programmable batch netting) and its effect on K.

Locked capital rises ×10.00: netting efficiency is lost unless a liquidity-saving mechanism is documented.

Security migration

Typical failure. Proof-of-stake presented as near-zero cost because energy use is small.

Required test. Book the opportunity cost of staked or locked capital next to energy and hardware; report the collateral share.

Carry cost of locked capital is 1998.7× energy and hardware: an energy-only disclosure understates drag.

Monetary robustness

Typical failure. Liquidity model tested only at the rate prevailing during the pilot, often near zero.

Required test. Recompute drag across rate regimes; the rate elasticity equals the collateral share (Prop. 1).

Collateral share across stress rates up to 97.3%; by Prop. 1 this is the rate elasticity of drag.

Latency value

Typical failure. Hardware and co-location costs justified by sub-millisecond finality.

Required test. Beyond 10³ s⁻¹, show that drag falls (a resource saving), not only that τ falls.

Below the Mach Barrier.