How can I improve efficiency of our project by integrating Interledger into the infrastructure?

#1

Hello! I am a VP of Engineering at Snowball. We are working on a development of an investment platform enabling retail investors to invest in diversified portfolios of crypto indexes.

We are exploring a possibility to utilize Interledger Protocol to increase the efficiency of our infrastructure.

Currently our infrastructure includes the following:

= cash in =

  1. We get user money via ACH via PrimeTrust as acquiring
  2. We send money from PrimeTrust to cryptocurrency exchange
  3. We execute orders to by crypto (based on portfolio)
  4. We send crypto to PrimeTrust as custodian
    ** we store some money in advance on exchange to speed up payments

= life cycle =

a) if user decides to change portfolio, we need to sell and buy some crypto
b) if asset allocation of index portfolio changes, we need to sell and buy some crypto for all users

= cash out =

  1. we send crypto from PrimeTrust to Exchange
  2. we sell crypto
  3. we send fiat (USD) to PrimeTrust
  4. we send fiat from PrimeTrust to client bank via ACH

Future infrastructure:

  1. many cash in options via different psp providers
  2. many cash out options via different psp providers
  3. many liquidity pools: different exchanges, OTC pools, etc

Would be very grateful for any recommendations on how we can improve our current/future processes by integrating the Interledger?

Thank you!

1 Like
#2

One way I can think of would be utilizing something like the switch API instead of using exchanges. This would allow you to cut out the exchange which I’m guessing would cut your fees. When there are more connectors on the network, I could also seeing ILP being used to simplify your Fiat on and off ramps. Right now you accept ACH, but if you accepted interledger payments, people could pay you in a variety of different ways without you needing to integrate with each network. Same with your off ramps, you could theoretically support any offramp that the protocol supports/connectors exist without integrating with each

3 Likes
#3

Zac, thank you for reply! That’s great. Do you think ILP in its current state could handle this? Any current use cases you could share? This could theoretically make us substantially more efficient.

1 Like
#4

No problem Oleg! I think the current system can handle some of this. Coil and Stronghold both operate Fiat connectors on the ILP, though I’m guessing you’d need some formal relationship with them to use them. Kava labs demoed the switch API in April, but I’m not sure if it’s publicly accessible.

I think some combination of @emschwartz @karzak @kincaid @sharafian @seanb might be the right people to ask

1 Like
#5

Thank you, Zac! Great for us, as the CEO of Kava labs is our investor. Will reach out to them via CEO.
Also thanks for mentions. I will research/contact them

1 Like