Licensing of the Settlement Agent and Proof-of-Reserves

The RUBT architecture is designed to scale liquidity and volume while preserving trust: ≥1:1 coverage must be verifiable, and the settlement perimeter must be institutionalizable. Therefore, two trajectories are embedded at the Agent level: Proof-of-Reserves (as a transparency standard) and licensing (as an optional but pre-built path to expansion).

8.1. Proof-of-Reserves as a mandatory Agent function

The Settlement Agent maintains reserve accounting and provides Proof-of-Reserves in a format suitable for DAO oversight and partner Execution Platforms.

What is confirmed:

• coverage of outstanding Monetary Claims under RUBT by RUB Reserves in the country of incorporation of the Execution Platform at no less than 1:1;

• exclusion of “technical” RUBT held on the Settlement Agent’s managed wallets from liabilities: RUBT held by the Agent and not forming external holder Claims must not be counted as obligations requiring Reserves.

Reserve layers and what PoR verifies:

• L1: RUB operational layer for immediate execution (T+0);

• L2: bank/brokerage accounts replenishing L1 (T+1);

• L3: highly liquid RUB instruments replenishing L2/L1.

Disclosure format and regime:

• PoR is regular reporting with predictable frequency and methodology.

• Disclosure is within confidentiality constraints (bank secrecy, corporate restrictions), but sufficient to verify coverage and L1–L3 structure.

8.2. Licensing of the Settlement Agent as an optional institutionalization trajectory

Tetris DAO intends to support the Settlement Agent in obtaining a license in regulated jurisdictions (e.g., ADGM, Hong Kong, and comparable regimes) enabling issuance of a regulated stablecoin, e-money, tokenized deposits, or similar products.

What may change after licensing (subject to regulator requirements):

• via Governance procedures, the DAO may transfer control of critical protocol roles and administrative rights in RUBT smart contracts (Owner/Master Minter, etc.) to the Agent’s licensed structure, without worsening user rights and without creating Monetary Claims against the DAO;

• the DAO may provide capital to the Agent’s licensed structure from the treasury (RUBT, stable assets, BTC/ETH, etc.) under a separate agreement;

• the parties intend to execute a separate Revenue Sharing Agreement under which the licensed structure pays a share of net income from RUBT operations to the DAO treasury (potentially up to 50%), but parameters depend on DAO capital, support scope, and regulator requirements.

Important: these provisions are a framework intention (“agreement to agree”), not a binding obligation to pay a specific percentage.