μ

FIATμ — Comparison Matrix

Where FIATμ, the Deviant non-custodial wallet, and the ASM / Orbital Swap stack sit relative to existing financial instruments — fiat currencies, synthetic stablecoins, CDP protocols, banks, exchanges, and remittance services. Each row is a structural property, not a marketing claim: what the user actually gets, who holds the keys, what the fee model is, what fails when the issuer fails.

1 / 6

FIATμ vs Stablecoins, Synthetics & CDPs

USDT, USDC, DAI, FRAX, sUSD, LUSD, crvUSD — every "stable dollar" makes a different trade between custody, collateral, and oracle dependence. FIATμ's design point is on-chain native, no issuer, no off-chain collateral, no oracle authority over funds.

Property USDμ (FIATμ) USDT (Tether) USDC (Circle) DAI (MakerDAO) FRAX sUSD (Synthetix) LUSD (Liquity)
Backing Native BCH UTXOs, vintage-locked at mint Claimed cash + commercial paper (off-chain) Cash + T-bills (off-chain, attested) Multi-asset crypto collateral (CDP) Mixed: USDC + algorithmic SNX collateral (over-collateralized) ETH only, 110% min
Issuer No central issuer — every key holder is their own issuer, minting from BCH substrate they already hold; on-chain ASM verifies each mint automatically Tether Ltd. (BVI) Circle Inc. (USA) Maker DAO governance Frax Finance DAO Synthetix DAO Liquity protocol (immutable)
Freeze / blacklist capability Impossible Yes (used) Yes (used) Indirect (via USDC backing) Indirect Governance can No
Oracle role Signal only — bounded blast radius ~10%/cadence even if compromised n/a (off-chain peg) n/a (off-chain peg) Authoritative — wrong feed = bad liquidations Authoritative Authoritative — feed manipulation = direct loss Authoritative for liquidations
Liquidation risk to holder None — holder is not a borrower None None Borrowers liquidated, holders fine As DAI Debt pool socializes losses Borrowers only
Peg mechanism No peg — adaptive rate (§12 controller) 1:1 reserves claim 1:1 reserves attested Arbitrage + stability fee AMO + collateral ratio Debt pool rebalancing Redemption + recovery mode
Bank run vulnerability N/A — no reserves to run on High (proven March 2023 wobble) Demonstrated (SVB Mar 2023) Indirect via USDC slice Indirect SNX price death-spiral ETH price floor
Cross-chain dependency None — BCH L1 only Bridges (multiple hacks) Bridges Ethereum L1 Ethereum L1 Optimism / Ethereum Ethereum L1
User pays to use BCH tx fee (~$0.0001) ETH gas ($0.50–$20) ETH gas ($0.50–$20) Stability fee + gas Gas + minting fee Gas + exchange fee One-time borrow fee + gas
Volatility behavior Face value stable for user; rate adapts to BCH De-peg events ($0.94 Oct 2018, $0.96 Mar 2023) De-peg ($0.87 Mar 2023 SVB) De-peg to $1.10 (Black Thursday 2020) De-peg events tracked Frequent de-pegs vs USD Premium above $1 typical
Multi-currency family USDμ, EURμ, GBPμ, JPYμ, INRμ, TRYμ, NGNμ, RUBμ (chipnet-validated) USDT, EURT (limited) USDC, EURC USD only USD only sUSD, sEUR, sJPY, etc. USD only
Takeaway: Every other entry in this row either trusts an off-chain issuer (USDT, USDC), trusts an oracle authority for liquidations (DAI, Liquity), or socializes loss across a debt pool (sUSD). FIATμ is the only design where the holder is not exposed to any of those failure modes — the asset IS native BCH, vintage-locked, with the oracle only allowed to nudge cadence within a bounded controller envelope.
2 / 6

Deviant Non-Custodial Wallet vs Banks & Fintech

Most banks charge for the privilege of holding your money — monthly/quarterly account fees, FX spreads, wire fees, minimum balances. A few (Wise, Revolut Pro) pay interest. The Deviant wallet's fee model is structurally different: keys are local, the user pays only the BCH transaction fee paid to miners.

Property Deviant Wallet Traditional Bank (Chase, Barclays) Neobank (Revolut, N26) Wise (multi-currency) PayPal / Venmo Cash App Custodial Crypto Wallet (Coinbase)
Who holds the keys / funds User (private key on device) Bank Bank partner Wise + partner banks PayPal Inc. Block Inc. Coinbase Inc.
Account / maintenance fee $0 $5–$25/mo unless balance min met $0–$15/mo tiered $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest paid on deposits Vintage-window appreciation (rate-controller side effect — not "interest") 0.01%–0.5% (US/UK retail typical) 0%–3% tiered Pays prevailing rate on balances 0% 0% checking, up to 4.5% on savings 0%–5% on staking products
Withdrawal limits None Daily / wire limits Tier-based Verified ID required $10k/week typical $7.5k/week sent Tier-based, KYC-gated
Account freeze / closure risk Impossible Common (compliance, civil seizure) Frequent ("de-banking" UK/EU) Compliance-based ~$1B+ frozen at any time (TOS) Compliance Common, esp. sanctions countries
KYC required to open No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FX spread (USD → EUR) ~0% (on-chain swap, ~$0.0001) 2%–5% 0.5%–1.5% 0.35%–1% (best in class) 3%–4% n/a (USD only) 1.5%–4% (crypto pair)
Wire / send fee (international) ~$0.0001 BCH tx $15–$50 outgoing + $15 incoming $0–$10 $1–$10 fixed + 0.4% 2.99% + $0.30 (intl) n/a $1–$25 network fee
Settlement time ~10 min final (1 block) 1–5 business days (SWIFT) Same-day to 2 days Often instant (hub-and-spoke) 1–3 days Instant within app 10 min – 1 hr (BTC); minutes for others
Works without internet to bank Yes (just need any chipnet/mainnet peer) No — bank's app must be up No No No No No
Insurance / guarantee None — but no counterparty to fail FDIC $250k / FSCS £85k Partner-bank-dependent Safeguarded (not insured) FDIC pass-through (sometimes) FDIC pass-through None (despite branding)
Receives interest from your deposits No one — funds stay yours Bank does (NIM ~3%) Partner bank does Wise does on float PayPal does on float Block does Coinbase does (& sometimes shares)

Sources: published fee schedules (Chase 2025, Barclays Premier Banking 2025, Revolut Plans 2025, Wise pricing page, PayPal merchant terms 2025), public bank-failure data, FDIC/FSCS thresholds. Crypto custodial column reflects FTX/Celsius/BlockFi/Voyager 2022–23 lessons.

Takeaway: Banks earn from holding your deposit (net interest margin, ~3% retail). Most fintech apps mirror the model but with thinner spreads. Wise is the cleanest of the custodial set (low FX, no monthly). The Deviant wallet sits outside the whole category — there is no entity earning float on your money, because there is no float. The cost is a per-transaction BCH miner fee in the ~$0.0001 range.
3 / 6

ASM / Orbital Swap vs Exchanges & Swap Mechanisms

Centralized exchanges hold your funds. AMMs (Uniswap, Curve) are non-custodial but need an LP, impermanent loss, and have MEV exposure. Order books like Cauldron and General Protocols' AnyHedge bring order-book semantics to BCH. The on-chain Automated Swap Mechanism (ASM) under the hood — Orbital Swap on the surface — is BCH-native: the Bitcoin Cash supply itself acts as the liquidity provider, with no pooled LP, no impermanent loss, and no protocol fee.

Property ASM / Orbital Swap (BCH) Centralized Exchange (Binance, Coinbase) Uniswap V3 (AMM) Curve (stable AMM) Cauldron (BCH OB) 1inch / DEX aggregator Atomic-swap (HTLC)
Custody Non-custodial (on-chain ASM-locked UTXO) Custodial Non-custodial Non-custodial Non-custodial Non-custodial (router) Non-custodial
Needs liquidity provider No — Bitcoin Cash supply is the liquidity provider (on-chain ASM) Order book / market maker Yes (LP pool) Yes (LP pool) Maker-posted orders Routes through pools/CEX Counterparty must exist
Impermanent loss None n/a Significant in V3 Low for stables n/a (limit orders) n/a n/a
Slippage on a $1k swap (illustrative) ~0% — on-chain ASM rate is deterministic ~0.01%–0.1% 0.05%–0.5% on majors, more on long-tail ~0.01% for stablecoin pairs Order-book dependent Best execution attempted Fixed by HTLC setup
MEV / front-running No mempool ordering exploit on BCH — first-seen + no general re-org incentive Possible internal sequencing Severe on ETH L1 Severe Limited (BCH) Aggregates the problem n/a
Trading fee BCH tx fee (~$0.0001) + small wallet/dApp fee (~0.3%–0.5%) — no protocol fee 0.05%–0.4% per side 0.05%, 0.3%, or 1% pool 0.04% Maker-set; protocol takes 0 Best-route fee + gas Network fees only
Settlement One BCH tx — 10 min final Internal ledger (T+0) 1 block (~12s ETH) 1 block ETH BCH block Multi-tx, variable Multi-block, both chains
Withdrawal censorship risk None Frozen withdrawals (FTX, Celsius) None None None None None
KYC None Required Frontend-dependent (sanctions blocks) Frontend-dependent None Frontend-dependent None
Listing process Permissionless — deploy a new on-chain ASM instance Pay-to-list ($M for top tier) Permissionless Permissionless (with veCRV gauge for incentives) Permissionless Aggregates listed Permissionless
Smart-contract attack surface On-chain ASM in CashScript — no loops, no recursion, small surface; proven via 129+ chipnet swaps with zero exploits since 0008 Off-chain code, opaque Large (battle-tested) Large Limited (BCH script) Router + every pool it touches Minimal
Takeaway: AMMs solved "permissionless trading" but pay for it with LP risk + MEV + gas. Order books need a counterparty. The on-chain ASM removes both: the Bitcoin Cash supply itself is the liquidity provider and the rate is deterministic — no LP, no impermanent loss, no protocol fee. The user-facing experience is "Swap" — same word as a centralized exchange, but the funds never leave their key.
4 / 6

Cross-Border Remittance: FIATμ vs Western Union, MoneyGram, Banks

World Bank tracks remittance costs averaging ~6% globally (target was 3% by 2030 — missed). $800B+ moved annually. The corridor matters: USA → Mexico is competitive (~4%); USA → Sub-Saharan Africa runs 8%+. FIATμ flips this from a percentage fee to a fixed BCH transaction fee.

Property FIATμ on BCH Western Union MoneyGram Bank wire (SWIFT) Wise Remitly Hawala (informal)
Cost on $200 send (USA → Philippines, illustrative) ~$0.0001 tx fee $8–$25 + FX spread (~5%) $5–$15 + FX $25–$50 + FX ~$2 + 0.5% FX $3.99 + ~1% FX 2%–10% (corridor-dependent)
Speed to recipient Instant — tx propagates in seconds; ~10 min for first-block finality Minutes (cash pickup) – days (bank) Minutes – hours 1–5 business days Often seconds–minutes Minutes – hours Hours – days
Recipient must have a bank account No — only a BCH wallet (free) No (cash pickup) No Yes Yes Usually yes No
Recipient ID required No Yes (gov ID at pickup) Yes Yes Yes Yes Trust-based
Sender KYC threshold None $1k+ in many jurisdictions Similar Always Always Always None
FX spread baked in ~0% (oracle-quoted rate, on-chain) 3%–7% depending on corridor 2%–5% 1%–3% + correspondent bank markup 0.35%–1% 0.5%–2% Corridor-dependent
Caps / limits None $3k typical cash, $50k with verification Similar None tech, but AML triggers $1M lifetime tiered $2.9k–$30k tiered Network-capacity-bound
Available where banks fail (Lebanon 2019, Venezuela, Argentina) Yes — any internet Partly (cash agents) Partly No Partly (with bank) Partly Often the only option
Recipient can immediately spend Yes — USDμ, EURμ, INRμ usable as-is Only after pickup → conversion Same After settlement In Wise app In app or via push to bank Cash
Total cost on $200, sent monthly for 12 months ~$0.001 / year $96–$300 / year $60–$180 / year $300–$600 / year $24–$36 / year $48–$72 / year $48–$240 / year

Cost figures based on World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide Q1 2025 data, individual provider published rate cards (Sep 2025), and corridor-specific spot checks (US→PH, US→MX, US→NG).

Takeaway: The Bangladeshi worker remitting $200/mo home gives up between $60 and $300 per year to the remittance industry. FIATμ on BCH collapses that to less than a cent per year — total — because there's no FX spread (rate quoted on-chain) and the only fee is the miner fee. The recipient doesn't need a bank account, doesn't need ID, and the funds arrive in usable face-value form (e.g. INRμ ready to spend at a merchant).
5 / 6

FIATμ vs Fiat Currencies Themselves

USDμ is not the same instrument as USD. The face value tracks USD; the backing is BCH vintage-locked at mint. The honest comparison is to the holding experience: how it stores value, how it transfers, who can debase or freeze it.

Property USDμ / EURμ / etc. USD (paper / bank deposit) EUR (paper / bank deposit) GBP JPY Soft / inflationary fiat (ARS, NGN, TRY, VES)
Issuer None US Treasury / Fed ECB BoE BoJ Central bank
Debasement by issuer Impossible — supply is mint-locked ~2%/yr target, ~3%–9% realized 2021–24 Similar Similar Recent shift to positive inflation 10%–200%+/yr in extreme corridors
Confiscation risk None (key-based) Civil forfeiture, IRS levy Account freeze (sanctions, judgment) UK "de-banking" rising Standard legal process Frequent (capital controls)
Capital controls None — keys move with you $10k FBAR reporting €10k declaration at border £10k ¥1M Strict (ARS blue rate, NGN parallel)
Border-crossing as carry-on 12 seed words memorized Declare > $10k Declare > €10k Declare > £10k Declare Often illegal to export
Store of value over 5y (1 USD-equiv held) ≥ 1 USD face value (rate adapts); backing BCH may have appreciated $0.84 (~16% cumulative inflation 2020–25) €0.85 £0.84 ¥ ~0.93 10%–80% loss is typical
Cost to hold for 1 year $0 — no fee, no bank ~3% real (inflation) minus deposit interest ~3% real ~3% real ~2% real 10%+ real
Cost to send $200 cross-border ~$0.0001 — flat; sending $10,000,000 costs the same $15–$50 wire, ~5% remittance Similar EU-internal cheaper Similar Similar Often blocked or 10%+
Programmable Yes (on-chain ASM) No SEPA Instant + APIs Open Banking No No
24/7 settlement Yes No (Fedwire hours) No (TARGET2 hours) No No No
Useful in hyperinflation (ARS, VES, NGN, LBP) Yes — USDμ is dollar-face on phone Yes (if accessible — usually not) Partly Partly Partly No — that IS the problem
Takeaway: Hard fiat (USD/EUR/GBP/JPY) gives up ~16% of value over 5 years to inflation. USDμ doesn't have an issuer to debase. Soft fiat (ARS, NGN, TRY) gives up far more, and access to hard fiat for ordinary citizens in those corridors is restricted or impossible — USDμ on a phone wallet bypasses both problems.
6 / 6

Summary — what FIATμ + Deviant + ASM is, structurally

A single position statement against the entire landscape.

Dimension Existing systems Deviant + FIATμ + ASM
Custody Either bank holds it (fiat, fintech) or issuer holds reserves (USDT/USDC) or borrower posts collateral (DAI/LUSD) User holds keys; asset IS native BCH UTXO
Fee model Monthly account fees, FX spreads, withdrawal fees, % per swap, gas, protocol cuts Per-tx BCH miner fee (~$0.0001) — no other party charges
Counterparty risk Bank failure (SVB, Signature), exchange failure (FTX, Celsius), de-peg (UST, USDC March 2023), CDP cascade (Black Thursday) None — no counterparty in the design
Oracle dependency DAI/Liquity/sUSD: oracle = funds. Stablecoins: off-chain attestation. AMMs: chainlink for many things Oracle = signal only; controller bounded ~10%/cadence even if compromised
Programmability Fiat: none. Stablecoins: ERC-20 contracts (gas-heavy). AnyHedge: BCH covenants On-chain ASM in CashScript — no gas, deterministic, validated on chipnet
Multi-currency Wise (8 currencies via custodial accounts); USDC/USDT only USD USDμ, EURμ, GBPμ, JPYμ, INRμ, TRYμ, NGNμ, RUBμ — same on-chain ASM template, no migration
Censorship resistance Banks freeze, USDC blacklists, exchanges block None of these mechanisms exist in the design
What pays for the system Spread on float, fees, protocol cuts, token emission BCH miner fees (already paid for any tx); no separate funding required
Failure mode Bank insolvency, exchange withdrawal halt, peg break, liquidation cascade Worst case: BCH price collapses → face value can drift in extreme tail; even then, holder's BCH UTXO is intact
The structural claim: FIATμ is not "another stablecoin," and the Deviant wallet is not "another fintech app." They sit one layer down — in the same place USD-paper-in-pocket sits relative to a Chase checking account. The user has the asset; nobody else is involved; the fee model is the underlying network's miner fee, not a separate business model.