The same institutional transaction runs in roughly 12 business days on legacy rails versus seconds on 4orm, and that time is money. Watch three rails race side by side, then pick your institution profile to put a dollar figure on it. Every assumption is adjustable on the page.
What you are looking at. An illustrative Canadian mid-size regional bank: roughly $2B to $6B in assets, 150,000 cross-bank payments a month at ~$4,000 average value, two-day ACSS settlement window today, 4% blended cost of funds. The five bars below show where 4orm produces savings against the modelled legacy cost on the same activity. Ordered from the most defensible (trapped liquidity, mathematical) to the most adoption-dependent (KYC reuse, scales with the network). Removal percentages were revised downward from earlier versions because Canadian banks already auto-screen and auto-match; the honest savings live in the manual tail, the liquidity float, and the correspondent layer.
Idle prefunding 1-2 days at 3.5% cost-of-funds. Atomic T+0 DvP removes ~95% of settlement float.
$0.15-0.25 CAD per interbank payment, zero on 4orm. 100% removal on on-platform flows only.
Rail-level canonical sanctions check cuts the manual disposition tail ~45%, not the auto-screening layer.
Same on-ledger record on both sides means fewer breaks. Honest removal 55%, not 95%.
Shared signed credential replaces per-institution KYC. Scales with adoption; smallest at single-bank deployment.
The model above produces savings without losing any of the controls your CAMLO and CFO require. Specifically:
Total supply of every token remains accurate and verifiable. Redemptions burn tokens; issuance mints them; the canonical registry is always reconciled.
Clear and complete record of ownership from issuance to redemption, immutably hash-recorded for audit and supervisory review.
Transparent audit trail accessible to regulators and internal oversight. Aggregate read-only visibility is continuous; customer-detail access is gated through lawful production order.
Fiat payouts at redemption follow institutional and regulatory requirements. Settlement finality requires treasury, custody, and canonical ledger confirmation, not blockchain alone.
The same controls, at a fraction of the labour.
One trade, onboard, screen, trade, settle, reconcile, report, run the way your operations team runs it today versus the way it runs on 4orm. Pick the scenario that fits, since the timeline depends on whether the counterparty is new, established, or internal. It plays automatically; press replay to watch again.
| Dimension | Manual process | On 4orm |
|---|---|---|
| Onboarding / KYC | Repeated per counterparty, 3 to 5 days | Reusable credential, seconds |
| Settlement cycle | T+2 (days of exposure)1 | T+0 atomic (instant)6 |
| Counterparty risk | Open until settled | Eliminated, delivery-vs-payment |
| Failed trades / breaks | Manual chase & repair | Atomic, settles fully or not at all |
| Reconciliation | Each side keeps its own books | One shared, self-reconciling ledger |
| Audit trail | Reassembled on request, weeks | Always-on, queryable instantly |
| Compliance reporting | Manual export & reconciliation | Auto-compiled from the record |
| Transparency | Fragmented across parties | Single source of truth |
How to read this: the timeline shown is the scenario selected above. Manual durations reflect typical institutional benchmarks, counterparty onboarding/KYC 3 to 5 days, AML 1 to 2 days, and DvP settlement at T+2, the ACSS deferred-net standard1, and are illustrative, not a quote. Larger amounts add enhanced due diligence and holds; model those by dollar amount in the sandbox's Money Flows view. The 4orm side is what the sandbox produces.
No spreadsheets, no data entry, choose a profile and the model prefills realistic Canadian benchmarks.
Loaded compliance cost C$60/hr. Sender carries correspondent/clearing fees and prefunding; receiver carries delayed-availability funding. 4orm embeds compliance at the rail (rail-level canonical sanctions screening removes the manual disposition tail, ~45% of total compliance labour per the v2 methodology), removes correspondents, and settles atomically (T+0).
Combined annual saving across sender and receiver, broken into four drivers. Hover each segment for details.
The same payment, settled on a shared ledger, here is what changes, updated live with the profile above.
Estimated platform cost: C$X per month for an institution this size. Annual platform cost: C$Y.
Platform cost ranges are indicative placeholder estimates only; actual pricing is not yet set. Net saving = modelled gross saving minus the annual platform fee range shown above.
"Trapped liquidity" = funds in transit plus prefunded settlement balances and collateral, held until next-morning net settlement. On a shared ledger delivery and payment move together, so it is freed, for both banks, at any size.
| Input | Value |
|---|
| Driver | Annual saving |
|---|
This is an illustrative model in CAD: every input above is a control you can change. Per-side savings split compliance labour (loaded at C$60/hr), correspondent/clearing fees, prefunding and delayed-availability liquidity, and reconciliation. The liquidity figure dominates and scales with value flowing × your cost-of-funds rate. Benchmarks are drawn from the primary sources below.
Illustrative cost model in CAD. Not financial advice.