Illustrative work sample / Settlement economics
Compare the whole payment.
A small network fee does not tell you the full cost. Change the assumptions to see how conversion, capital and exceptions affect the comparison.
Every default input is hypothetical. These are not live quotes, measured provider performance or claims about a particular bank, stablecoin or corridor. The model demonstrates a method.
Cost under these assumptions
| Cost component | Route A | Route B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider + network fees | ||
| Conversion spread | ||
| Capital opportunity cost | ||
| Expected exception cost | ||
| Total modeled cost |
Modeled difference:
A lower modeled cost alone does not establish the preferred route.
What the arithmetic does
- Conversion: payment amount × spread in basis points ÷ 10,000.
- Capital: payment amount × annual cost of capital × tied-up hours ÷ 8,760.
- Exceptions: assumed probability × assumed cost per exception.
- Total: provider fee + network fee + conversion + capital + expected exception cost.
With the default assumptions, Route A costs $269.34 and Route B costs $100.96: a $168.38 difference. These are outputs of the example, not observed savings.
What would change the decision?
Replace the assumptions with corridor-specific quotes and operating data. Check what the recipient actually receives, the timing of usable funds, redemption conditions, liquidity, counterparty exposure, legal eligibility and the process for failed payments.
The model does not price exchange-rate movements, depegging, losses from counterparty failure, taxes or the impact of a missed critical payment. Expected exception cost is an average assumption; it does not describe the worst case. Confirm whether each quoted fee is additional or already included to avoid double counting.
Turn the comparison into a decision.
A scoped CURRENT review can connect the economics to the operating requirements, evidence and implementation choices for a real payment flow.