Summary – Our Compliance Philosophy
This page summarizes how WANNA and G-Series Stablecoin 2.0 think about law, regulation, and compliance at a high level.
It connects:
our position on the U.S. market,
our position on countries other than the United States, and
the way these views are reflected in protocol design and the long-term roadmap.
This is an explanation of design intent and philosophy, not legal advice.
1. We Design With Regulation in Mind (Not Against It)
From inception, WANNA and G-Series are designed with the assumption that:
regulation of stablecoins and digital assets will tighten over time, and
any serious, long-lived infrastructure must be able to operate within future frameworks, not just at their edges.
That means:
Collateral choices (USDC, USDT, RWAs, local fiat-backed stablecoins where available) are selected so they can, in principle, sit inside regulated structures.
Risk management emphasizes:
over-collateralization,
transparency, and
conservative guardrails, to make it easier to satisfy future prudential and disclosure requirements.
The protocol is built as an infrastructure layer (FX, settlement, treasury), not as a direct replacement for:
bank deposits,
licensed payment institutions, or
consumer-facing regulated products.
In short:
We assume regulation will catch up—and we want WANNA and G-Series to be ready to fit into that future.
2. Different Starting Points: U.S. vs. Non-U.S. Markets
Our current positioning distinguishes between:
2.1 United States
G-Series (including GUSD) is not designed or marketed as a U.S. “Payment Stablecoin” with:
a direct USD deposit claim, or
a U.S. bank / money transmitter redemption obligation.
U.S. retail users are not a primary target, and access may be:
limited,
geo-fenced, or
subject to partner-specific controls.
If U.S. regulation or strategy requires it, we are prepared to adapt, for example by:
partnering with licensed Payment Stablecoin issuers or financial institutions, or
restructuring certain flows for U.S.-specific use cases.
2.2 Countries Other Than the United States
Many jurisdictions are defining rules for primary fiat-backed stablecoins, but the legal treatment of:
second-layer, asset-referenced tokens like G-Series, and
global FX / settlement protocols built on top of them, is still not fully settled.
Our strategy is to:
build infrastructure using already regulated collateral where possible (e.g., bank-issued stablecoins, regulated USD coins, compliant RWA), and
align with each country’s framework over time, including via:
local partners,
licensing, or
product restrictions, when classification and licensing paths become clear.
3. Not “Regulatory Arbitrage,” but “Staged Alignment”
Our approach is not:
to permanently operate in grey zones, or
to design purely around loopholes.
Instead, the philosophy is:
Build early, conservatively
Provide useful infrastructure (FX, stable settlement, on-chain treasury) while laws are still catching up.
Avoid over-promising (e.g., not branding G-Series as insured deposits or guaranteed-return products).
Keep the structure flexible
Use modular components (collateral, oracles, governance, compliance hooks) so that:
parts can be strengthened, licensed, or localized,
without rewriting the entire system from scratch.
Align as frameworks mature
As countries define clear categories (stablecoin, ART, e-money, payment instrument, etc.), we are prepared to:
connect with regulated issuers and custodians,
adapt redemption and reserve models,
restrict or tailor features for certain user segments or regions.
4. Protocol-Level Compliance Hooks vs. Front-End Responsibilities
The compliance philosophy also defines who does what:
At the protocol level, WANNA can:
integrate sanctions and screening oracles (e.g., block sanctioned or clearly illicit addresses from mint/burn),
enforce risk and safety rules (collateral ratios, liquidity thresholds, haircuts),
provide transparency on reserves and key parameters.
At the front-end / partner level (wallets, exchanges, fintechs, RWA issuers), parties are expected to:
implement KYC/AML as required in their jurisdiction,
apply geo-restrictions and user segmentation (retail / professional / institutional),
obtain and maintain any licenses required for:
offering financial products,
marketing to local users, or
operating as a payment or e-money provider.
This separation reflects our view that:
The protocol should embed basic safeguards and transparency, while specific KYC/AML and licensing obligations sit with the entities that face end-users.
5. Interaction With the Roadmap
The compliance philosophy is tightly connected to the 5-phase roadmap:
Phase 1–2 (GUSD / G-Series + Earn)
Focus on conservative over-collateralization, basic sanctions screening, and transparent reserve logic.
No assumption of full “bank-like” regulation, but built in a way that can later map onto regulated structures.
Phase 3 (Brokerage: RWA & Lending)
Heavier reliance on licensed RWA issuers and lending venues.
More country-specific requirements (e.g., access limitations, investor qualification) handled via partners and interfaces.
Phase 4–5 (UX Abstraction & G-Series Mainnet / Payments)
As real-world payments and higher volumes enter, the need for:
robust licensing,
higher operational standards, and
local compliance integrations naturally increases.
The system is designed so that local partners can plug into the same core rails under their own regulatory regimes.
6. What This Means for Users and Partners
For individual users:
You should not assume that:
G-Series is a bank deposit,
any return is guaranteed, or
any particular legal treatment applies in your country.
You should check:
whether using G-Series is permitted in your jurisdiction, and
whether there are tax or reporting obligations for you.
For partners and integrators:
Treat G-Series as infrastructure, not as a ready-made licensed product.
Obtain your own legal and regulatory advice before:
marketing to users in a specific country,
offering yield, RWA, or leveraged products,
positioning G-Series as a payment or investment service.
Expect that:
some features may need to be localized, restricted, or structured differently by jurisdiction, and
regulatory alignment is an ongoing process, not a one-time event.
Last updated