The payment system is moving onchain
What SpendGraph observes, and how completely. Coverage, not market total.
2 / 19
networks with facts
Ether.fi Cash (cash-v3)0/14
Gnosis Pay Safe Card Protocol1/1
RedotPay0/3
UR Account / Card Protocol1/1
One node per declared network, grouped by the system that declares it. A spoke is membership, not a flow of value — no flow is published here.
Payment economy at a glance
systems reaching each capabilityIdentity0/4
Account4/4
Funding4/4
Authorization4/4
Settlement4/4
Credit0/4
Data note
Every figure here is SpendGraph's observed coverage within its own scope. It is not a total for the on-chain payment market, and no denominator for that market is published anywhere on this site.
Methodology →Market snapshot
Observed coverage, not market total — each card names its own source
Payment events observedC06 · C09
539
11 published points
Payment systemsC01
4
4 registration packs
Active payment addressesC06 · C09
—
address-model systems onlyiAn on-chain address is the account identity on some registered systems and not others: UR's account is a Fiat24Account ERC-721 token id, which the registry states is not the holding address, and RedotPay registers no on-chain account at all. This metric answers for the systems whose account model is an address, and its definition says so. It is not a share of `Active accounts` and must not be added to it — every address counted here is also one of those accounts.
Tracked payment activityC06
Not observed
needs an amount model iAmounts are reported per denomination with no total. A cross-currency figure would need an exchange rate, and SpendGraph does not observe one on-chain.
Connected chainsC01
2
100 · 5000
Payment economy flow
How a payment system is structured — a semantic model, not a flow of funds
Source of funds
4/4
- F02 User funds
- F03 Account funding
Stablecoin rails
Research required
Carried as an infrastructure rail — chains, roles, custody — none of which is a payment function.
Payment accounts
4/4
- F01 Payment account
Payment instruments
4/4
- F04 Authorization request
- F05 Authorization decision
- F06 On-chain payment control
- F08 Funds hold
- F09 Authorization adjustment
- F14 Authorization expiry
Merchant & payments
Research required
The frozen catalog defines no acceptance function. F16 is a dispute, which is not the same thing.
Settlement layer
4/4
- F07 Post-authorization funds action
- F10 Clearing instruction
- F11 Pre-settlement funds movement
- F12 Final network settlement
- F13 Reversal
- F15 Refund
Financial services
Research required
Yield, lending and insurance are not in the frozen catalog; F17 is a charge on a payment, not a service sold beside one.
Payment ecosystem map
Registered systems, grouped by the capability ground they cover — nothing sized by data, no share, no order of magnitude
Account
Funding
Authorization
Settlement
No node is weighted, scaled or ranked by any figure — a node is as wide as its own text and nothing else. The count is assessed groups out of 4. §四 forbids an unfounded market share, so the only relation this map draws is that two systems in one cluster cover the same capability ground.
Capability coverage
Systems per group
Data trust
Coverage iDeployments with a committed publication batch. A batch answers how far coverage reaches, never how many facts exist.
2/4
2 with a contiguous watermark
Function assessment iRegistration packs that carry payment-function assessments against the frozen catalog of seventeen.
4/4
packs carrying assessments
Architecture profile iA draft profile counts as none: a claim under review presented as established is what review status exists to prevent.
3/4
published profiles
Intelligence feed
What changed, and why
Not applicableThe product design has a signal feed. No component produces one, so there is no panel here rather than an empty panel.
industry_signals
observed_amount_totals
Not observed iAmounts are reported per denomination with no total. A cross-currency figure would need an exchange rate, and SpendGraph does not observe one on-chain.
market_share
Not observed iThe observed population is SpendGraph's coverage, not the market. A share would need a denominator nobody here has measured.
Data trust and quality
Every figure is a count over a stated denominator — nothing is weighted into a score
Publishing
2/4
deployments with a committed batch
Contiguous
2/4
with an unbroken watermark
Republished
15
overlapping committed batches
Fact evidence
19/70
assessment rows proven on chain
Catalog proven
8/17
functions with any fact row
Metric series
3/5
core metrics with a published series
Methodology
- Every count here is SpendGraph's observed coverage. It is not a total for the on-chain payment market, and no denominator for that market is published anywhere on this site.
- Counts are read from C09's published series at a pinned catalog revision. This page performs no count of its own — a second implementation of a published metric is a second thing that can be wrong.
- Publication batches answer how far coverage reaches, never how many facts exist. A repair republishes a range, so summing batch fact counts double-counts the repaired part: on 2026-08-21 that sum was 85,021 against 81,034 actual facts, with zero retractions.
- A registration status describes how far SpendGraph's own review of a pack has got. It is not an assessment of the protocol, and every review state is compatible with a deployment that stopped carrying payments months ago — which is why activity is a separate column.
- The payment function catalog is frozen at seventeen entries. A new protocol term is mapped onto an existing function rather than growing the catalog, so a function absent from a protocol's assessment means nobody has assessed it — not that it does not exist.
- The six capability groups are defined by this site alone, as a presentation over the seventeen. Two of them — Identity and Credit — have no catalog function, so no protocol can be assessed against them and they are shown as such.