Does structurer == issuer in every case?

Questions
1

Hi, I’d like to create a generic instrument whose claims are defined by one party (the structurer) but issued by another (the issuer). The point is that the structurer can define and sign off on the correct characteristics, but which can then be issued by multiple issuers. As far as I can tell, this requires a new instrument for each unique issuer. I can work with that, but the problem is that any sort of generic rule I want to define down the line (say, for accounting) would need to be redefined for each Instrument (thought I suppose I can keep the label the same).

2

HI @Levente_Barczy,

I might have a limited understanding of your problem, but the decoupling of instrument and holding in Daml Finance allows you to do this.

  • One instrument contract signed by the structurer
  • Each issuer acts as custodian on the respective holding contracts

Or is your question targeted at the Daml Finance App, which comes with an additional set of assumptions?

Thanks,
Matteo

3

Hi Matteo,

So you’re proposing to have the instrument signed by the structurer (with issuer = structurer) and have the holding signed by the actual issuer (custodian = issuer)? I’ll give that a shot… But I think that will require some rewriting of the App services as they stand :slight_smile:

1 Like
4

Update:
This worked like a charm. I created one instrument and custodied it at three different obligors.

However, I did have to make changes to the app. Particularly the getFungible function doesn’t care about the custodian which results in some funny behaviors.

-L

5

Thanks for the feedback, happy to hear that you got it to work!

Matteo