A public network for moving money, savings, and real world assets across the Morocco to Malaysia corridor. Built and proven by Fasset. Opened as shared infrastructure for banks, telcos, and payment companies.
A remittance from the Gulf to South Asia passes through a chain of correspondent banks. Each one takes a fee. Each one adds a day. The person sending pays several percent of the value and waits.
An operating system is the shared layer a computer's applications run on. OWN Network plays the same role for financial activity. Fasset, live today with 2 million users and over $32 billion in annualised volume, is the flagship application proving the model. The network is open so any qualified institution can build on the same rails.
Designed for the regulation, currencies, and corridors of the Morocco to Malaysia region, not retrofitted from infrastructure built elsewhere.
Tokenised equities, sukuk, commodities, and private credit are first class objects on the network, not afterthoughts.
KYC, sanctions screening, accreditation, and Shariah rule sets are enforced at the asset contract, not bolted on per application.
Retail users transact in the stablecoins and local currency they already hold. They never need to acquire or manage the network token.
Sub-second deterministic finality, on-chain compliance primitives, and tokenised assets are production technology now, not research.
MiCA, the GENIUS Act, VARA in Dubai, and frameworks in Bahrain, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan give institutions a credible legal path on-chain.
OWN does not search for its first use case. Fasset already runs on OWN infrastructure. The network launches with demand, not in search of it.
OWN Network is organised as a five layer stack. Each layer has a defined function and inherits the guarantees of the layer below it.
Final settlement of every transaction with deterministic finality in under 1 second. The unit of account is a stablecoin, which removes the volatility cost users would otherwise pay.
OWN Network runs today as an Ethereum Layer 2, the rail behind Fasset's banking application. The network's defining mechanism, the protocol level fee conversion, is strongest when enforced on infrastructure OWN fully controls. The roadmap is a deliberate, dated migration to a sovereign Layer 1.
OWN Chain operates as an Ethereum Layer 2 today, powering Fasset's live banking and payments platform across its corridors.
A sovereign Layer 1 gives OWN full control over fee mechanics, validator admission, privacy, and ordering. The fee to OWN engine is enforced at the protocol level.
Transaction fees are payable in any whitelisted stablecoin. There is no volatile native gas token, which means predictable costs and simpler accounting. The network is not bound to a single issuer.
Existing Fasset users transact in local currency. An Account Abstraction and paymaster design sponsors or abstracts gas, so the experience matches a conventional fintech app. For a typical retail transfer, the gas component rounds to a fraction of a cent.
Accepting many stablecoins diversifies issuer risk. A regulatory event affecting any 1 stablecoin does not become a whole-network event, a structural difference from designs bound to a single issuer.
The emerging agent payment standards, x402 and MPP, make on-chain payments fast and cheap, but they stop at a wallet. A merchant in Karachi or Jakarta still needs a separate conversion and compliance step. OPP closes that gap as a superset of both standards.
Settles straight into a regulated local bank account across licensed jurisdictions.
An on-chain credential carries KYC and sanctions screening, clearing on the first handshake.
The response returns rates across currencies, pinned at signing time, for cross-corridor agents.
An OPP endpoint accepts x402, MPP, and OPP-native requests. Existing clients work unchanged.
OWN is the network's coordination asset. Its five functions are designed to reinforce one another. The token operates at the operator and institutional layers. End users do not need to hold it.
Validators and stakers lock OWN to secure the network and earn rewards.
Staked OWN is the economic weight behind consensus and is subject to slashing.
All protocol fees convert to OWN, linking network revenue to the token.
After the proof-of-stake transition, holders vote on fees, inflation, and the burn ratio.
Holding or staking OWN unlocks fee discounts of 20 to 50 percent and gas subsidies.
The structural demand mechanism is the protocol level fee conversion. Every fee, in whatever stablecoin it is paid, converts to OWN at block settlement before distribution. No participant can route around it. Demand scales directly with network volume.
Non-optional · enforced at the protocol level · scales with total network volume
Genesis supply is fixed at 10 billion OWN. No OWN is created outside the defined inflation schedule. The allocation below is the current working model. It is not yet finalised and is shown as a basis for decision.
Two streams run in parallel. Inflation begins near 2 to 3 percent a year and decays. It exists only to pay validators and stakers before fee volume is sufficient. The burn destroys a share of every fee conversion. Neutrality is the point where burn meets issuance, after which the token is net deflationary.
The decay schedule and starting burn ratio are open parameters. The crossover shown is a design objective, not a projection.
Each tier carries more commitment and earns a return on what it actually contributes: security, infrastructure, or capital.
Stakes OWN, produces blocks, meets uptime service levels. Fasset is the anchor validator.
Validator commission on every fee conversion, governance weight, and block proposer weight proportional to stake.
Stakes at scale, runs a dedicated non-consensus node, and brings sustained volume into the network.
Settlement priority that holds under congestion, reduced fees, and network-anchor standing.
Stakes OWN only, with no infrastructure to run. The existing Fasset base is a pre-loaded staker pool.
Reduced transaction costs and a pro-rata share of protocol fees after validator commission.
A major corridor operator can take the network's regulated stack at zero licence cost in exchange for an ownership and governance position rather than a customer relationship. Every vendor alternative keeps the operator a tenant in perpetuity. The anchor seat makes the operator an owner.
The reference case is the proposition put to VEON: the regulated stack at zero licence cost, in exchange for a share of OWN supply, a validator seat, and binding governance over fees, jurisdictions, and roadmap. The seat is exclusive per corridor.
Governance is designed to move across five phases. Phases 1 to 3 are committed. Phases 4 and 5 are directional.
The network operates as a venture-backed company. Founders control all decisions. There is no token and no token-holder governance yet. Security rests on identity-verified, legally accountable validators.
A network worth building is worth describing honestly. These are the principal risks the design carries.
The network is an Ethereum Layer 2 today. Migration to a sovereign Layer 1 is non-trivial, and the full fee engine depends on it.
Unlock schedule, inflation decay, burn ratio, and conversion mechanism are not yet finalised. The fee engine will not have operated before the token event.
The token's classification is unresolved across jurisdictions. The network depends on maintaining authorisations across many markets at once.
Investor obligations and binding governance granted to anchor-operators create concentrated control that runs against the decentralisation trajectory.
The anchor application is live, but multi-tenant expansion and the Node Operator tier are unproven. OPP depends on banking relationships holding.
Arc and other stablecoin-native networks are competing for adjacent infrastructure. Several are better capitalised and further along.
The paymaster model preserves a friction-free experience but is an operating cost whose funding source must be specified.
Fasset is steward, anchor validator, and operator of the flagship application. The network's early fate is correlated with Fasset's.
This section is review commentary, kept separate from the network's own description. It states what is genuinely strong, what is genuinely weak, and what should be done before any public release.
Arc, built by Circle, is a near-identical economic operating system network. The two are the same architectural species. The meaningful difference is steward, capital, market, and execution maturity.
OWN's advantage is not technical, it is market selection. Its path runs through being the dominant economic operating system for the Morocco to Malaysia corridor, a market where its regulatory assets and live anchor application are real and its competition is weak.
A comparative analytical brief. Arc is post-testnet, pre-token-event. OWN Network is pre-whitepaper, pre-token-event, in early phases. Items not from a primary source are marked Estimated, Inferred, or Open.
Arc and OWN Network are, at the level of protocol mechanics, near-identical designs. Both are sovereign Layer-1 blockchains presented as an Economic Operating System. Both run a five-layer stack. Both launch under Proof-of-Authority with a permissioned validator set and intend a transition to Proof-of-Stake. Both use stablecoin-denominated gas so end users never hold the native token. Both run a protocol-level fee-to-token conversion with a burn. Both carry a 10 billion fixed supply and a 2 to 3 percent decaying inflation bootstrap.
The convergence is not coincidental. The meaningful divergence is not technical. It is the identity of the steward, the target market, the maturity of execution, and the structure of go-to-market.
| Dimension | Arc (Circle) | OWN Network (Fasset) |
|---|---|---|
| Steward | Circle. NYSE-listed public company. | Fasset. Private, venture-backed (Series B). |
| Anchor demand engine | USDC, large circulating supply. | Fasset application: 2M+ users, $32B+ annualised volume. |
| Target market | TradFi institutions first. Top-down distribution. | Emerging markets first. Bottom-up from a licensed retail base. |
| Settlement unit | USDC, a single dominant first-party stablecoin. | Any whitelisted stablecoin. Multi-issuer by design. |
| Distinguishing layer | Five institutional SDKs. | OPP: agent payments terminating in regulated local fiat. |
| Execution maturity | Live testnet, mainnet beta dated. | Pre-whitepaper. Token event recommended from month 24. |
The thesis. Arc is the better-capitalised, further-executed, incumbent-anchored network competing for the global institutional settlement layer. OWN is the structurally similar challenger competing for a different and largely uncontested market, emerging-market retail and SME finance, where its licence stack and live anchor application are a genuine moat but where its steward, capital base, and execution timeline are materially weaker. The two are not, on current evidence, competing for the same customer.
| Role | Arc | OWN Network |
|---|---|---|
| Steward | Circle. All five layers. Holds 25% of supply. | Fasset. All five layers. Holds the team allocation. |
| Validators | Permissioned, identity-verified. Produce blocks, enforce, do not vote. | Same. Fasset is anchor validator. |
| Node operators | Not a distinct class in the Arc whitepaper. | A distinct tier for payment processors and corridor banks. |
| Stakers | Delegate token weight. Govern economic parameters after PoS. | Same. 2M+ Fasset users form a pre-loaded base. |
The Node Operator tier is OWN's one genuine structural innovation over Arc. It is well matched to an emerging-market corridor business, where the economically important actors are payment processors rather than global custodians. Whether it is more than a presentational distinction depends on undisclosed mechanics.
Arc designates USDC as native gas, which tightly couples the network to one issuer. OWN accepts any whitelisted stablecoin and abstracts gas further with a paymaster, so an OWN user can transact in local currency while an Arc user still transacts in a dollar instrument. OWN's OPP layer adds fiat termination: a single signed payment is delivered to a regulated local bank account, which neither x402 nor MPP does. OPP's value, however, comes from the licence stack behind it, not from the protocol itself.
OWN's most distinctive choice is to run the network operationally before a native token exists, with a token event recommended no earlier than month 24. The strategic logic is sound: launching a token with thin fee volume destroys its value. The mechanical risk is that the value-capture engine is dormant exactly when the network most needs to prove it, validator compensation has no token-funded source pre-token-event, and governance is fully centralised by construction during the bootstrap.
| Network | Allocation model |
|---|---|
| Arc | Ecosystem 60% · Circle 25% · Long-term reserve 15%. 10B fixed. |
| OWN | Ecosystem 30-35% · Team 20% · Strategic 15-20% · Foundation 15% · Liquidity 5%. 10B fixed. (Open.) |
Arc's 60% ecosystem bucket is the larger single supply overhang, and its unlock schedule is explicitly withheld. OWN's model is more granular but faces the identical unresolved unlock-schedule problem. Neither network can currently be supply-modelled.
Both run a decaying inflation bootstrap and a fee-to-token conversion with a burn. The mechanism is the same, so neither scales better on the mechanism itself. The differentiator is the volume flowing through it. Arc has the larger theoretical volume ceiling; OWN has the more credible volume floor, because its anchor application is already processing real volume.
| Parameter | Arc | OWN |
|---|---|---|
| Unlock and vesting schedules | Deferred | Unpublished |
| Inflation decay schedule | Range only | Undisclosed |
| Starting burn ratio | No figure | Not set |
| Fee conversion mechanism | Undisclosed | Undisclosed |
| Token regulatory classification | Open | Open across all jurisdictions |
On tokenomics, OWN's blind spots are not worse than Arc's. They are the same blind spots. Arc's advantage is only that it is closer to the point at which these numbers are conventionally published.
Circle is the stronger steward on every conventional measure: more capital, public-market discipline, longer operating history, a larger anchor asset. Both stewards, however, carry a governance tension that points the same way: an incentive to retain control that runs against the decentralisation their tokens imply. For Circle the cause is public-shareholder fiduciary duty; for Fasset it is private-investor commercial obligations. Neither whitepaper resolves it.
OWN's anchor-operator instrument offers a major corridor operator the regulated stack at zero licence cost in exchange for a share of supply, a validator seat, and binding governance. Arc has nothing equivalent.
In favour: it solves OWN's hardest pre-token-event problem, attracting real corridor volume, and it pays in a currency the network prints. The risk: governance concentration. One of eight validator seats combined with 5 percent of supply and binding votes makes a single corporate a structural power centre on day one. Repeated across several anchors, a handful of corporates would control the validator set and the economic parameters, the opposite of the decentralisation the governance roadmap promises. The model is defensible used once, with caps and explicit exit clauses; it is dangerous if repeated without limit.
| Risk | Arc | OWN Network |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | USDC single-issuer dependency. Token classification unresolved. | Token classification unresolved across many jurisdictions; many regulatory relationships to maintain. |
| Adoption | Institutional adoption is still prospective. | Anchor app is live; multi-tenant expansion is unproven. |
| Technical | Conversion mechanism and privacy cost undisclosed. | Same gaps; paymaster model undisclosed; more design surface still open. |
| Economic | Supply unmodellable; neutrality unquantified. | Same; fee engine dormant through the bootstrap. |
| Governance | Public-company duty may conflict with ceding control. | Investor obligations and anchor-operator blocs concentrate control. |
| Execution | Ahead. Live testnet, hard data, public-company balance sheet. | Behind. Pre-whitepaper, pre-token-event. |
On architecture: there is no verdict to render. The two networks are the same design.
On execution: Arc is decisively ahead, plausibly by 12 to 18 months.
On economic transparency: a draw, and a poor one for both. Neither can be modelled today.
The question that matters is which network has the more viable path to becoming a true Economic Operating System in its respective target market, because the two are not chasing the same market.
For the global institutional settlement layer, Arc is the more viable candidate: stronger steward, capital, incumbent anchor, and execution lead.
For emerging-market retail and SME finance, OWN is the more viable candidate, and close to uncontested there. Its licence stack, live retail anchor, multi-stablecoin gas, OPP fiat termination, and corridor-anchor go-to-market are all genuinely fitted to that market.
The single-sentence verdict. Arc is the stronger network on steward, capital, and execution and is the more viable candidate for the global institutional layer. OWN is the architecturally near-identical challenger whose advantage is market selection: a large, underserved emerging-market segment where its regulatory assets and live anchor application give it a real and defensible position, provided it can finance the bootstrap, arrive at the token event with evidence, and resist concentrating its own governance in the corporate anchors it uses to get there. Neither network's success depends on the other.