Why Two Separate Systems?
Separation of Concerns
| Aspect | Settlement Layer | Investment Layer |
|---|---|---|
| Users | Telecom carriers | Investors |
| Purpose | Operational settlement | Capital deployment |
| Deposits | Permissionless (with KYC) | Async (managed) |
| Withdrawals | Permission required | Managed by IM |
| Architecture | Non-upgradeable (stable) | Upgradeable (flexible) |
| Standards | ERC-20, ERC-2612 | ERC-7540, ERC-4626 |
Why Settlement is Non-Upgradeable
Stability is the priority:
- The layer holds millions in carrier funds; any logic change carries outsized risk
- Real-time settlements must not fail
- Carriers build operational systems on top of it and need predictable behavior
- Battle-tested code accumulates safety over time; upgradeability discards that history
- Regulatory approval ties the contract to a specific implementation
Why Investment is Upgradeable
Flexibility matters here:
- Investment products change with markets and regulation
- New yield strategies slot in without touching carrier settlement
- Bugs can be patched without redeploying the settlement layer
- The Investment Manager adapts the product as conditions shift