Builds
The same control model, built four times.
Demonstrators, not deployments. Three are on public test networks and you can open them now.
These are not deployed networks and no institution is running on them. What they show is that a custody, control and release arrangement can be made explicit and tested before anybody commits to a pilot.
Canton is the one used in an engagement, because a party sees its own side and no more. The others exist to establish which parts of the pattern are properties of the model and which are properties of the platform.
What the build makes explicit.
- Which assets are eligible, and what disqualifies one.
- Who may immobilise, release, substitute or enforce, and on whose instruction.
- What evidence a decision rests on, and what happens when it expires.
- What remains available once an asset is committed elsewhere.
- What the arrangement refuses, and the rule that refused it.
A refused act names the condition that stopped it.
A description can hold a contradiction for years. Two clauses that cannot both be satisfied sit in two documents and nobody reads them together.
A build cannot. Ask it to release against expired evidence and it stops, and names the condition that stopped it. Ask it to pledge the same parcel twice and it stops again.
Every refusal traces back to a rule somebody stated.
It runs on what it was told. It does not check the world.
It does not verify that a cargo exists, that a certificate is genuine, or that a party did what they said. It is not a production system and nothing should be settled on it.
It does not perfect a security interest, prove reserves, operate custody, transfer title or move money, and it is not legal advice.
What it establishes is whether the account somebody gave holds together when a machine has to act on it.
The same control model, built four times.
One control model, built on four platforms, to find out what each could and could not carry. Each build runs the same lifecycle: an asset placed into control, evidence that supports it, an authority to release, and the refusals that stop a release that should not happen.
Canton and Corda are the two used in an engagement, because on both a party sees its own side and no more. The public builds answered a different question and are here as evidence.
The four, and what each was built to answer
| Implementation | Ledger | Access | Written in | Status | Control question tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argent | Stellar, Soroban | Public | Rust | Live demo · Source, Apache-2.0 | Can an ordinary public chain carry this at all |
| Aurum | Canton | Permissioned | Daml | Live demo | Can privacy be built into the contract instead of bolted on |
| Ferrum | Corda | Permissioned | Kotlin | Live demo | Does the record hold together with no shared event log |
| Stannum | Algorand | Public | PyTeal | Live demo | What can a timestamp alone prove, without the rest |
Demonstrators, not deployments. They use illustrative data and do not operate custody, issue credit, verify assets, perfect security or settle transactions. Some sleep when idle and take up to a minute to wake.