I designed two stablecoins that start from opposite collateral realities: CONCORDIA for stable backing with abundant liquidity, and $DUX for flexible backing with volatile liquidity.
What would you build if you could start over, knowing what breaks, with a clear view of every failure mode we've already seen?
This section presents two design experiments that tackle opposite collateral realities. CONCORDIA assumes stable backing with abundant liquidity (commodity reserves). $DUX assumes flexible backing with volatile liquidity (receivables and mixed assets).
Both are shaped by the comparative work, the attack models, and the DeFi security research. Both are grounded in specific economic and regional realities rather than abstract ideals.
Core idea: sustainable stablecoins, with the current tech we have, aren't about finding a perfect design. They're about choosing what to optimize for, then being honest (and prepared) about what you're giving up.
Across every model we studied, the same constraint shows up. You can't maximize all three at once:
So instead of designing as if this constraint doesn't exist, each experiment here makes explicit trade-offs based on its intended use case, and builds serious mitigation around the dimensions it deprioritizes.
Each experiment follows the same three-part integration framework:
That keeps the technical layer, incentive layer, and decision layer aligned. No accidental contradictions.
Stable backing, abundant liquidity
Commodity reserves (copper, niobium) as collateral. Physical assets with verifiable value and deep global markets.
Multi-sovereign trade settlement for Latin American strategic minerals. Neutral infrastructure for geopolitical coordination.
Capital efficiency, geopolitical neutrality, transparent settlement.
Commodity price volatility, multi-sovereign coordination friction, slower governance.
Flexible backing, volatile liquidity
Mixed collateral: stable reserves + receivables + growth treasury. Assets with variable liquidity and credit risk.
Liquidity for Brazilian creators with verified brand contracts. 30–90 day payment acceleration.
Cash flow efficiency, yield generation, real-world utility.
Operator risk, underwriting quality dependence, limited decentralization.
Partners (pilot): Brazil, Chile, USA, China
Collateral: 500k tons copper (Chile) + 500k tons niobium (Brazil) ≈ $25B
Token: $CNC, pegged to a basket of partner currencies
Chain: Celo, implemented through Mento
Latin America controls a large share of strategic minerals (rare earths, copper, niobium), but still operates inside a trade and debt system designed elsewhere. Commodity settlement is slow (days), opaque (off-chain pricing), and intermediary-heavy.
At the same time, the region sits in a structural geopolitical bind: China dominates processing capacity and is a major trade partner; the US is still the largest total trade bloc. Neutrality is hard to sustain without better infrastructure.
In short: the region has leverage on paper, but not in the pipes.
CONCORDIA treats strategic commodities as transparent, verifiable collateral for a neutral, instant-settlement trade layer. The stablecoin isn't the "product." The product is a settlement and coordination system.
Brazil enters at a lower CR target (around 120%) due to higher debt pressure. Chile enters higher (around 145%) with more stability cushion. System CR floats between ranges with transparent rebalancing.
Revaluation can be triggered by:
Adjustments happen through: add collateral, reduce supply (buyback/burn), or adjust CR targets.
A hard cap on DeFi exposure during the pilot: 20% max per country, optional opt-in. Prevents systemic collapse if experiments fail while preserving a conservative core.
One key per country, 3-of-4 required for major moves. Prevents capture by any single party, including superpowers.
Reserves become strategic liquidity without forcing asset sales — meaning debt negotiations can be linked to enforceable mineral access instead of informal political bargaining.
CONCORDIA is less about "a new stablecoin" and more about proving that public, verifiable stable infrastructures can unlock geopolitical coordination that traditional finance can't.
Geography: Brazil (creator economy focus)
Peg: BRL 1:1
Backing: Three-layer hybrid system
Creators with verified brand contracts often wait 30–90 days for payment. Traditional factoring is expensive (monthly fees that add up fast), and DeFi rarely touches receivables in emerging markets because verification and underwriting are messy.
$DUX blends company-backed liquidity with DeFi transparency. It's explicitly not trying to be maximally decentralized in phase one — it's trying to solve a real cash-flow problem without pretending the off-chain part doesn't exist.
CR thresholds, peg deviation rules, crypto drawdown alerts, receivables default limits, and redemption-velocity caps.
Operator risk and underwriting quality. The system lives or dies by credit discipline — which is why centralization is accepted upfront, not papered over.
CONCORDIA: Stable backing (commodities) + abundant liquidity → optimizes for efficiency and neutrality
$DUX: Flexible backing (mixed assets) + volatile liquidity → optimizes for utility and yield
Shared patterns:
Key differences:
Applied most directly to $DUX and CONCORDIA's attestation process.
Applied most directly to CONCORDIA's flexible CR model and $DUX's layered backing.
Reflected in TradeLimit, circuit breakers, and liquidation staging.
Safe core + limited-exposure experimentation beats "ship everything at once." If you can't bound risk, you can't learn safely.
CONCORDIA accepts coordination friction for neutrality. $DUX accepts operator risk for cash flow efficiency. Honesty about limitations builds trust.
Assume any single layer can fail. Build redundancy across reserves, prices, patterns, and stress tests.
Stablecoins don't stay stable because the math is pretty. They stay stable because people need them in non-speculative contexts.
Systems fail faster when they pretend to be something they're not.
Every mechanism is attackable in isolation.
Trade settlement and creator financing don't disappear in a bear market.
Learn inside guardrails before expanding.
Commodity-backed systems need different governance than receivables-backed systems. Mismatch creates fragility.
CONCORDIA's contribution is showing stablecoins can be coordination infrastructure, not just financial instruments. $DUX shows they can be cash flow tools, not just stores of value.
For complete technical architecture, detailed mechanics, and full protocol specifications, view the full research documentation: