Primary buyer
Wallet providers, custodians, and treasury teams
Proposed solution design
A wallet transfer or smart-contract interaction needs accountable authority, exact scope, and evidence from the system that applies it.
Industry designs describe target integrations. A page or example operation is not an available adapter, registered predicate, or deployed service.
Wallet providers, custodians, and treasury teams
A wallet transfer or smart-contract interaction
Chain, asset, recipient, contract, amount, nonce, and expiry
Enforce at a wallet, smart account, or signing service that controls transaction submission. Assess chain-specific simulation, finality, and reconciliation.
A dashboard cannot stop signing through an unrestricted key. Wallet integration and on-chain revocation behavior require partner-led validation.
Use the existing credential-rotation evaluation to inspect shared authorization mechanisms. It does not execute this industry-specific action. A domain demonstration requires its own adapter, protected destination, and observed effect.
Use case / Wallet providers, custodians, and treasury teams
Illustrative integration review. These controls explain the design; they do not submit requests, grant authority, or execute an action.
Stage 1
A wallet transfer or smart-contract interaction
Use the existing Living Intent Contract and closed predicate envelope. New domain constraints require registered typed predicates, documented semantics, and one deterministic evaluator. Domain content and secrets stay outside the envelope. No new universal protocol or compatibility certification is claimed.
These external specifications and programs inform integration design. Links do not establish a partnership, implemented adapter, or 2AYE conformance.