Model-specific risks and mitigation mechanisms

RUBT risks arise not from “token volatility” but from the architecture: localized settlement in rubles via a partner perimeter combined with ERC-20 on-chain circulation. Below are risks specific to this design and the embedded mitigations.

9.1. Risk of divergence between “on-chain ↔ settlement perimeter” accounting

Nature of risk: potential mismatch between

• on-chain RUBT balances on users’ Managed Wallets, and

• records/accounting of the Digital Right in the Execution Platform perimeter.

Mitigations:

• Managed Wallets (EIP-4337) and dual signature (user + Execution Platform technical authorization for actions affecting the Monetary Claim);

• Mirror Invariants: no operation in the settlement perimeter without a mirrored on-chain transaction, and vice versa;

• smart contracts and Execution Platform integration hard-code two invariants:

• no Execution Platform record without an equal on-chain balance on the Managed Wallet;

• no withdrawal into free on-chain circulation without termination/adjustment of the Claim in the settlement perimeter.

Core idea: risk is eliminated by architecture and invariants, not by “procedures.”

9.2. Risk of insufficient RUB Reserves (≥1:1)

Nature of risk: total Reserves of the Settlement Agent fall below total outstanding Monetary Claims under RUBT in the settlement perimeter.

Mitigations:

• contractual duty of the Settlement Agent to maintain Reserves ≥1:1 versus outstanding Claims;

• three-layer reserve structure (L1–L3) optimized for T+0/T+1 liquidity;

• exclusion of RUBT on the Settlement Agent’s managed wallet from coverage calculations to avoid overstating liabilities;

• Proof-of-Reserves and reporting to the DAO and partner Execution Platforms;

• strict localization of buyback and Claim creation: the Claim exists and is settled only in rubles and only within the settlement perimeter, preventing uncontrolled external Claims “anywhere and in any currency.”

9.3. Risk of Execution Platform unavailability or failure

Nature of risk: the Execution Platform is required for:

• Settlement Agent execution of placing/buyback operations;

• buyback 1 RUBT = 1 RUB in rubles;

• maintaining Mirror Invariants.

Prolonged unavailability of an Execution Platform temporarily deprives users of operations related to Claim settlement via the Settlement Agent, while on-chain RUBT balances on Managed Wallets remain.

Mitigations:

• settlement occurs only within the perimeter, making the risk observable and manageable: failure suspends Claim-perimeter operations rather than “breaking” the model;

• during downtime users continue to hold RUBT on-chain but cannot create/modify the Claim without synchronization;

• after recovery, mirror architecture enables correct continuation of accounting;

• strategic reduction through diversification across multiple partner Execution Platforms (architecture supports multiple platforms if invariants are preserved).

9.4. Risk of Settlement Agent incapacity or failure

Nature of risk: the Settlement Agent concentrates:

• settlement execution role in the perimeter;

• custody of L1–L3 Reserves;

• buyback operator/market-making functions;

• protocol roles (Minter/Burner).

Incapacity (insolvency, account blocking, license loss, external restrictions) may temporarily make settlement of Claims impossible.

Mitigations:

• use of nominal/specialized accounts to separate client funds and Agent funds (within the applicable counterparty regime);

• ability to pause mint/burn and buyback at the protocol-role level;

• replacement of the Settlement Agent by DAO decision with procedural alignment in the settlement perimeter;

• architectural ability to substitute the Settlement Agent with a new obligated entity that assumes RUB obligations and Reserves while preserving accounting invariants.

9.5. Market risk of the DAO treasury position (long BTC/ETH, short RUB)

Nature of risk: the DAO intentionally holds a structural position: long BTC/ETH versus RUBT obligations. Adverse BTC/ETH performance can reduce treasury value.

Mitigations:

• conservative leverage and debt limits;

• asset diversification and cautious DeFi usage;

• Governance control by veTETRIS holders over treasury policy.

9.6. External constraints and geopolitics

Nature of risk: even with correct architecture, external constraints may affect operations, settlements, and counterparty availability.

Risk-reducing factors:

• collateral is held in rubles in the country of incorporation of the Execution Platform (banks/brokers/liquid instruments);

• the Issuer/Agent structure is designed to minimize dependence on higher-risk jurisdictions and infrastructures;

• disputes and settlement are localized within the settlement perimeter.

This risk cannot be fully eliminated: operational frictions, restrictions, and indirect impacts remain possible.