Payments Patterns for B2B with hosted Wallet Providers

From the new Whitepaper, it sounds like the unhosted wallets will have severe limitations and be implemented in a later step.
For a quite usual pattern in business applications, ie. high volumes of B2B payments with small amounts, how should this be realized? Assuming B2B payments are always regulated and cannot be executed by unhosted wallets, they will have to use custodian wallets. Now, does this mean they will have to use an API provided by the respective hosted wallet provider, or will Libra provide the existing client APIs to endusers like SMEs and apply the restrictions at protocol level?


Hi good question ,
where do you see that , it won’t be possible directly with Libra Blockchain ?
i red the white paper but i didn’t see this part.

1 Like

No, I just assume it! I conclude from the 4 different “regulation” layers and the fact that unhosted wallets have been postponed (this is mentioned in the WP).

So there seems to be one valid option to me: as a “kind of” regulated entity like a company (ie. not a retail customer with low transfer volumes) I will have to find a 1-3 layer provider, but they will offer custodian wallets, ie. “hosted wallets” (this is not explicitly mentioned in the WP, but can be concluded).

So if I was a provider of a hosted wallet, I probably have already a “battle proven” API for payments. Now, if I can choose, I would probably let my customers use this API and just use Libra internally as a cheaper transfer option. As I see it, only Libra/the consortium can request retail customers to be offered the “Libra API”, ie. the possibility to use Libra directly, for trust reasons. But they still couldn’t use the transfer part of the Libra API, as the wallets/accounts are not in their access.

The only possibility which seems valid to allow endusers to access the account directly would be some kind of multi-sig which requires the provider to sign the customer’s transaction after checking for the required verification.

1 Like

Very good point !
But they didn’t say that the unhosted wallet will be postponed. They just said "Unhosted Wallet activity for users will be subject to transaction and address balance limits and other controls
The Association believes it is important that the Libra network permits direct access by non-VASPs, namely Unhosted Wallets…"

But indeed for those who want to use smart contracts have to go through Hosted Wallets.

The Hosted wallet provider needs to provide API to interact with his Smart Contract and use a multisign or a Hardware Security Module to let the user validate his transaction.

Yes, postponing is not mentioned, correct, but as regulatory issues have been the biggest show-stoppers, this might be an option. If not, that’s great, but still with the limits B2B will be almost impossible to do. So the question is more general: how will hosted wallet providers provide Libra access? Is this specified or can they do as they want - which would most likely mean reusing their existing APIs?

1 Like