RECRYPInfrastructure built to be inspected, not infrastructure you have to trust blindly.
Recryp is designed from the ground up to be a neutral, auditable interoperability layer — one that enforces the policy each jurisdiction sets, rather than making compliance decisions on institutions' behalf. This page is for regulators, central bank policy teams, and standards bodies evaluating what a private interoperability layer between sovereign rails should look like.
As CBDCs multiply, so does the question of who builds the connective tissue.
As central bank digital currencies multiply, so does the question of who builds the layer that connects them to each other — and how that layer is held accountable. Private-sector interoperability infrastructure raises legitimate questions: does it introduce systemic risk, opaque decision-making, or a chokepoint sitting outside any single jurisdiction's oversight?
We think a credible infrastructure provider should answer these questions proactively, as part of how the system is designed, not defensively after the fact.
That shapes the architecture directly: discrete, named corridors instead of an undifferentiated global pool of value; policy that jurisdictions configure and Recryp enforces, not the reverse; and settlement logic designed to be reviewable rather than opaque.
The same four-layer stack, read for oversight.
Here's what each layer of Recryp's architecture means from a regulatory and oversight perspective.
Connectivity
Every corridor Recryp operates is visible and specific — we don't operate as an undifferentiated global pool of value, but as discrete, auditable corridors between named sovereign rails.
Compliance
Policy — transaction limits, sanctions lists, reporting obligations, capital controls — is configured per jurisdiction and enforced programmatically. Regulators define the rules; Recryp's role is enforcing them consistently, not interpreting them unilaterally.
Settlement
Atomic settlement is inherently more auditable than a multi-hop correspondent chain — there's no ambiguity about where a payment is "in flight" or who holds intra-day credit risk on it.
Liquidity & FX
FX pricing and matching logic are designed to be transparent and reviewable, not a black-box spread — important for any jurisdiction concerned about capital flow monitoring.
How we expect to work with regulators, in practice.
These aren't customer use-cases — they're how we intend to bring regulators and standards bodies into the process before, not after, a corridor goes live.
A sandbox engagement with a policy team
Before any live corridor, a regulator's team reviews and stress-tests how Recryp enforces their specific policy configuration inside a sandbox.
A joint review before a corridor goes live
Two regulators, one per side of a corridor, review the compliance and settlement design together before that corridor goes live between their jurisdictions.
Standards alignment work
Engaging with a standards body — for example, on ISO 20022 extensions for CBDC interoperability — to keep Recryp's message formats and data models aligned with emerging cross-border standards rather than inventing a parallel one.
From regulatory and policy teams.
Who has oversight of Recryp itself?
We're pre-seed. As we move toward live corridors, the specific regulatory relationships and oversight structure will be shaped jointly with the central banks and regulators we're partnering with — this isn't something we intend to finalize unilaterally.
Does Recryp hold custody of sovereign digital currency?
Our settlement model is built around atomic, rail-to-rail settlement specifically to minimize the need for Recryp to hold or custody value in transit. The architecture detail is something we walk through directly with regulatory counterparts.
How do you handle a jurisdiction that wants to restrict or halt a corridor?
Because policy is configured per jurisdiction and corridors are discrete — not a shared global pool — a jurisdiction retains the ability to set limits on, or halt, a corridor involving its own rail.
Can we review the architecture before any corridor involving our jurisdiction goes live?
Yes — that's the intent behind engaging regulators early rather than presenting a finished product. Reach out and we'll set up a working session.
Evaluating what interoperability infrastructure should look like?
We'd rather have this conversation early, and shape the architecture with your input, than present it as a finished product later.