Who keeps the reserve income and who pays the yield?

In a white-label arrangement a brand issues a payment stablecoin on infrastructure run by a platform. The coin's reserves earn income; a commercial agreement divides that income. Some arrangements also push rewards to the people who hold the coin.

The node takes the deal as four declared blocks: a profile (the enacted statutory regime), a period (days plus either a declared reserve income or an average reserve value with an annual yield in basis points), a split (per-party shares in basis points or fixed minor-unit amounts), and a list of holder rewards, each carrying a payer role, a funding source, a value and a conditioning. It reads role labels (issuer, permitted_issuer, foreign_issuer, platform, distributor, custodian), never legal names. A reward payer must be one of those labels, and the three issuer labels all count as the issuer; any other payer label, including an issuer affiliate, is refused rather than read as a non-issuer. Funding and conditioning values outside their short lists are refused too. It reads integer minor units, and integer minor units, never floats.

A brand is issuing a stablecoin through a platform. The agreement gives the platform 35% of reserve income and a distributor 25%. If the platform offers holders a rewards programme, which party's economics does the reward actually consume, and who is the payer of record?

If the deal declares a reserve income, that figure is the base. Otherwise the node accrues it: annual yield in basis points applied linearly over the period's days to the declared average reserve value. Shares follow, and one rounding rule governs everything: floor to integer minor units.

Conservation is the integrity check that catches an agreement that silently over-allocates: if the parties' shares add up to more or less than the income the reserves actually produced, the numbers do not describe the same money. A basis-point split must also name the full 10,000 bp. The node reports the allocated sum alongside the income so a reviewer can see the size of any gap rather than a bare boolean.

Reserves averaged 2.5 million dollars over 30 days at 4.25% annualised. The split says 40 / 35 / 25 across issuer, platform and distributor. Recompute the income and each share in cents, and tell me whether the split is conservative.

A holder sees a reward and reasonably asks two different questions: who paid it, and what money funded it. The answers can diverge: a distributor can write the cheque from the issuer's share of reserve income, and that distinction is exactly what the enacted statute turns on.

Each reward's trace row records the payer role, the funding source, the value, the conditioning, and two booleans: payer_is_issuer and funded_by_issuer_flow. Conditioning (holding, activity, none) is carried as a declared fact. The rows are pinned to the paragraph that the enacted profile implements, so the output carries its own citation.

The distributor pays holders a 2% rewards programme but says it is funded from the issuer's share of reserve income, not the distributor's own margin. Under the enacted US stablecoin statute, does the issuer's role in funding that programme change the analysis compared with the distributor funding it from its own margin?

Three verdicts, driven only by the trace: an issuer-paid reward yields ISSUER_YIELD_PRESENT; an issuer-funded reward paid by somebody else yields REVIEW; everything else is NO_ISSUER_YIELD. Split defects flag independently. The enacted profile is pinned on every output; the node ships no proposed-legislation profile because no settled bill text was pinnable at build.

All six vectors are synthetic: every value is invented and no real deal terms or named counterparties appear anywhere in the node. A seventh vector refuses an unknown profile: the node ships exactly one profile, the enacted statutory one, and refuses anything else rather than guessing at a regime it has no pinned text for. The statutory prohibition this node implements, with its pinned enrolled text and hash, is carried in the node's cited-clause record: Public Law 119-27 § 4(a)(11), which bars a permitted payment stablecoin issuer from paying a holder any form of interest or yield solely in connection with the holding, use or retention of the coin.

Using check_issuer_reserve_yield_share: a deal declares 31 days of reserve income worth 300,000 cents, split issuer 150,000 / platform 90,000 / distributor 60,000, and one holder reward of 4,000 cents paid by the distributor and funded from reserve income, conditioned on holding. What verdict comes back, which flags fire, and which paragraph does the trace cite?