[Open Question] Settlement-asset tiering — a normative vocabulary for cash-leg trust tiers

[oa-sarvesh]

Context

Atomicity is only as strong as the cash leg (Whitepaper §6.1): tokenized reserves/wCBDC, tokenized commercial-bank deposits, and regulated stablecoins/e-money carry materially different risk. The issuer-archetype analysis (§7) concludes the settlement asset's credit tier belongs in the core metadata descriptor, not buried in documentation.

The question

Should the standard define a normative vocabulary for cash-leg trust tiers (reserves / deposits / e-money), and who maintains it?

How to contribute

• Propose a tier taxonomy and its defining criteria (issuer liability type, backing, redemption mechanics, regulatory status).
• Address governance: is the taxonomy fixed in the spec, maintained by the TSC, or delegated to an external body (BIS/CPMI vocabulary, national frameworks)?
• Consider edge cases: multi-issuer consortium tokens, tiering that changes with jurisdiction, hybrid backing.

Reference: Whitepaper §6.1, §6.4, §7.