Are you an LLM? Read llms.txt for a summary of the docs, or llms-full.txt for the full context.
Skip to content

The unit economics

Does a commodity trade actually pay for the financing it needs? The pipeline names the stages; this page prices them, and reports where the answer changes rather than tuning inputs until it clears.

Why the pipeline is hard

The financial model charged a borrower a coupon, a protocol fee and monitoring. A real gold cycle also pays for a vault, secure freight, specie cover, a responsible-sourcing audit, customs, and a correspondent bank that moves money twice per cycle.

Adding them — with deliberately modest numbers, so that any failure would be structural rather than pessimism — produces the sharpest result in the whole development.

The borrower is a physical trader

A commodity borrower does not compare your coupon to a bank's rate. It compares it to its return on capital: margin per cycle times turns per year. A 1% net margin on a 30-day cycle is a 12% return; the same margin on a three-week cycle is 17%.

Two consequences follow, both proved. Velocity is a price lever — a shorter cycle strictly raises the sustainable coupon. And capital is never satiated: while the coupon sits below the return on capital, the coupon charge never exceeds what the capital earns, at any scale. More capital is always wanted.

The result

At a 1% margin on a 30-day cycle, the completed pipeline does not finance itself.

The decomposition matters more than the verdict. The borrower began with 25 basis points of slack. The fee stack adds 45 — alone an overrun. But the settlement rail's five days cost a further 150 basis points of gross return, because a 30-day cycle turns twelve times a year and a 35-day cycle only ten.

Time beats price roughly six to one. The correspondent bank is the sharpest actor in the pipeline, and it appeared in no earlier model.

The frontiers

Rather than tune inputs until the model clears, the development reports where it clears:

  • Velocity, at a 1% margin: a 30-day cycle fails; 21 days clears.
  • Margin, at 30 days: 1.0% and 1.2% fail; 1.5% clears.
  • Coupon: no coupon clears both sides at 1% and 30 days. Cutting to 7% wins the borrower but leaves the protocol 179 basis points against a 400-point cost base.
  • Scale: making that work needs a cost base under 179 bps — roughly $112m of reserve.

One term helps, and it is proved: because the operator owns the refinery, an intra-group refining fee leaves the group's capacity to service the note unchanged.

Every pipeline cost here is unverified. What is claimed is the frontier. The failure is conditional on two numbers only the operator can supply: margin per cycle, and cycle length.

The frontier now meets a document

The frontiers above were published because no source supplied the two numbers. The founder primer does supply them, inside a worked example — and that example clears comfortably.

At 1.50% over a 14-day cycle, with every fee charged and the rail's five days added, the completed pipeline returns 2,137 basis points of gross against 920 of full cost. That is 2.3× cover, against a 1%/30-day case that fails outright. Nor is it near an edge: holding the margin, the cycle can stretch to 35 days before it fails; holding the cycle, the margin can fall to 0.65%.

So the negative result is a statement about that cycle, not about physical gold trade. Both published frontiers are now bracketed by a document rather than open at one end.

One caution, stated because it is the honest one. This is a teaching example inside a sourced document, not the operator's disclosed economics. It moves the two coordinates from "no source at all" to "attributable and quoted"; it does not make them the operator's numbers, and the calibration used elsewhere on this site is deliberately left where it was. The primer says the same thing in its own words: capital velocity explains the economics; it does not prove safety.

Three places this comparison is looser than it looks

An adversarial pass over this page found three seams worth stating plainly, because each one moves a headline number.

The rail's five days may already be inside the fourteen. The course states 14 days as the whole cycle before the trader receives cash back, and gives no settlement-rail delay anywhere. The model adds 5 rail days on top. That is conservative — dropping the addition would raise the worked deal's gross from 2,137 to roughly 2,925 bps — but the 150-bps rail cost that drives "time beats price six to one" is an assumption stacked on a course figure that may already contain it, not a measurement.

The financing rates sit on different bases. The course charges 11% annual simple on the full $10m purchase. The model charges a 10% coupon on a 75% advance, plus protocol and monitor fees, giving 875 bps of NAV. Those are different rates on different denominators, and nothing here reconciles them — so the $42,200 above and the basis-point results below are adjacent, not comparable.

The optimum advances more than the course's example. The published optimum runs a 75% advance rate; the course's worked deal caps at 70% with a 30% haircut, and its short-tenor example runs 50%. Gross return is linear in the advance rate, so every headline number on this page inherits that 5-point difference. The model has no collateral-haircut field at all — the haircut machinery lives in the borrowing base (itemNetValue, draw_within_borrowing_base) and is uncalibrated.

None of these breaks a proof. Each is a modelling choice that a reader comparing our numbers to the course's would otherwise have to reverse-engineer.

Where this connects

The frontier here is the borrower's side of the same spread the protocol earns on: see how Doré makes money for the protocol's half, and every player for the ledger that holds both sides in one identity.