The Market

Executive Summary

Wherever a custodial ledger exists, wherever a variable transaction cost is incurred, wherever an intermediary extracts value from the movement of assets: there is an opportunity for computational possession to replace the legacy model. This paper quantifies that opportunity across seven key verticals, ordered from the fastest path to adoption to the largest macro-economic opportunities. For each vertical, we present the scale of the market, the nature and cost of the friction, and a conservative model of Onli's revenue capture potential at modest market penetration rates. The conclusion is unambiguous: we do not need to capture these entire markets to build a generational business. Because Onli's economic advantage eliminates between 91% and 99.9% of friction costs for enterprise users, even capturing a fraction of a single percent of these global flows represents billions in platform revenue.

The Architecture of the Opportunity

Before sizing the market, it is worth understanding why the opportunity exists at all. The answer lies in a single architectural decision that has shaped the global financial system for centuries: the decision to use custodial ledgers as the mechanism for recording ownership. A custodial ledger is a database maintained by a trusted third party (a bank, a clearinghouse, a platform operator) that records who owns what. When ownership changes, the ledger is updated. The trusted third party is paid for maintaining the ledger and processing the update. This model is so deeply embedded in our financial infrastructure that it is rarely questioned. It is simply assumed to be the only way to track ownership of digital assets. The consequence of this assumption is that every single transaction in the global economy carries a marginal cost.

These costs are not the result of inefficiency. They are the result of architecture. The custodial ledger requires intermediaries, and intermediaries require compensation. The only way to eliminate these costs is to eliminate the need for the custodial ledger entirely. That is precisely what Onli does. By replacing custodial records with computational possession, where the asset is the property, not a record of the property, Onli eliminates the intermediary and, with it, the variable transaction cost. The result is a system where the cost of a transaction approaches zero as the ecosystem matures.

Micro-Commodities: Gaming, Loyalty, and the Creator Economy

TAM: $380 Billion – $500 Billion+ The micro-commodity vertical encompasses three distinct but structurally similar markets: in-game virtual goods and currencies, consumer loyalty and rewards programs, and creator economy tokens and digital collectibles. What unites them is that they are all entirely digital assets whose value is derived from community consensus rather than physical backing, and all three suffer from the same fundamental problem: the assets are not owned by the users who hold them. The global online gaming market is one of the largest entertainment industries in the world. According to Fortune Business Insights, the market reached $225 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to $583 billion by 2034. ^[7]^ Newzoo estimates that there are currently 3.6 billion active gamers globally. ^[8]^ Within this ecosystem, the virtual goods market (skins, weapons, characters, in-game currencies) is a multi-billion dollar economy in its own right, projected to reach $13.8 billion by 2026. ^[9]^ The loyalty and rewards sector is even larger. According to Bond Brand Loyalty's annual research, the global loyalty market generates over $100 billion in outstanding currency value annually. ^[10]^ A widely cited industry study estimates that the total value of unredeemed loyalty points globally could be as high as $360 billion. ^[11]^ In the United States alone, consumers lose an estimated $10 billion annually from unredeemed and expired loyalty points, with over 26% of all points going unspent. ^[12]^

For the brands that issue these points, this unredeemed value sits on the balance sheet as a massive, compounding liability, a phenomenon the industry has begun calling the "Ghost Economy." The creator economy adds a third dimension: platforms like Patreon, Substack, and Twitch have created a new class of digital micro-asset whose value is entirely dependent on the continued operation of a centralized platform.

The Friction

In gaming, players spend real money to acquire in-game assets that they do not actually own. The Terms of Service for virtually every major gaming platform explicitly state that in-game purchases are licenses, not property. The platform can revoke, modify, or eliminate these assets at any time. When a game shuts down (which happens constantly), the assets disappear entirely. For brands issuing loyalty points, the friction runs in the opposite direction. The points are a liability on the balance sheet, but they are also a customer retention tool. The challenge is that the administrative cost of managing a loyalty program (tracking points, preventing fraud, processing redemptions, maintaining the database) consumes an enormous share of the program's value. Industry estimates place loyalty program administration costs at between 0.5% and 2% of total revenue annually. ^[14]^ For a mid-market retailer with $500 million in annual revenue, that is $2.5 million to $10 million per year in pure friction costs.

The Onli Solution

Onli transforms these liabilities into liquid, tradable property. By minting loyalty points or in-game assets as Genomes, brands give users true computational possession of their digital property. The assets can be transferred, traded, or sold peer-to-peer without any involvement from the brand's database. The brand's administrative costs drop to near zero. The user's asset is genuinely theirs.

The Onli Revenue Model

The micro-commodity vertical is Onli's fastest path to adoption because it requires no regulatory approval, no institutional partnership, and no complex integration. Any brand with a loyalty program or any game developer can deploy an Onli Treasury and begin minting assets immediately. The global micro-commodity market processes approximately 500 billion transactions annually. Onli captures 0.5% of this market, or 2.5 billion transactions. In a mature ecosystem, 10% of transactions require new asset issuance (250 million issuances). At $0.05 per issuance, this generates $12.5 million in annual issuance revenue. At 1.0% market penetration, the issuance revenue alone exceeds $25 million annually.

Trade Finance: Bridging the SME Gap

TAM: $9.7 Trillion  |  Unmet Demand: $2.5 Trillion Global trade finance is the engine of international commerce. It encompasses the financial instruments and products that enable importers and exporters to transact across borders, including letters of credit, documentary collections, supply chain finance, and trade credit insurance. Without trade finance, the vast majority of global trade would not occur. The global trade finance market is valued at approximately $9.7 trillion annually, according to Global Market Insights. ^[15]^ The World Supply Chain Finance Report 2024 estimates that the global supply chain finance market alone reached $2.3 trillion in 2023. ^[16]^ These figures represent the volume of trade that is successfully financed, but they dramatically understate the true size of the opportunity, because they exclude the enormous volume of trade that cannot be financed at all.

The Friction

The Asian Development Bank conducts the most comprehensive annual survey of the global trade finance gap, measuring the difference between the demand for trade finance and the supply. According to the ADB's 2026 report, the global trade finance gap remains stubbornly high at $2.5 trillion. ^[17]^ This gap falls disproportionately on Small and Medium Enterprises in developing markets. The reason is purely economic: the variable cost of underwriting and processing a trade finance transaction is largely fixed regardless of the transaction size. For a $10 million letter of credit, a 1% processing fee generates $100,000 in revenue for the bank. For a $50,000 SME trade instrument, the same 1% generates only $500, often less than the cost of the paperwork. Banks rationally decline to process small-dollar trade finance requests, and the $2.5 trillion gap is the result. The International Chamber of Commerce's Trade Register confirms that letter of credit fees typically range from 0.5% to 3% of the transaction value, with additional charges for amendments, discrepancies, and document handling. ^[4]^ For an SME processing $1 million in annual trade, these fees can consume $15,000 to $30,000 per year.

The Onli Solution

By replacing custodial letters of credit with computable, self-executing Genomes, Onli drops the marginal cost of a trade finance instrument to $0.05, which is the one-time issuance fee for the Genome representing the trade claim. Once issued, the instrument can be transferred, endorsed, discounted, or settled at zero additional cost. This makes servicing the $2.5 trillion SME gap economically viable for the first time. A regional bank or fintech lender that deploys an Onli Treasury can process a $50,000 trade finance instrument for $0.05, rather than $500 to $1,500 in processing costs. The economics of small-dollar trade finance are transformed.

The Onli Revenue Model

If Onli captures 1.0% of the $2.5 trillion unmet trade finance gap ($25 billion in newly serviced trade), and assuming an average transaction size of $50,000, this represents 500,000 new trade instruments minted annually. At $0.05 per issuance, the direct issuance revenue is $25,000. The real revenue, however, comes from platform adoption.

Cross-Border Payments: The Quadrillion Dollar Problem

TAM: $1 Quadrillion (Total Flows)  |  B2B Segment: $31.7 Trillion Cross-border payments represent the most visible and most quantified failure of the custodial paradigm. The scale of the market is almost incomprehensible. According to a June 2025 working paper by the International Monetary Fund, titled "Global Cross-Border Payments: A $1 Quadrillion Evolving Market?", the total volume of global cross-border payment flows approached one quadrillion dollars in 2024. ^[2]^ To put this number in context: one quadrillion dollars is one thousand trillion dollars. The entire GDP of the United States is approximately $28 trillion. The global cross-border payment market processes the equivalent of the entire U.S. economy approximately 36 times per year. Within this total, the B2B cross-border market (payments between businesses across borders) is the highest-value segment. FXC Intelligence estimates the B2B cross-border market at $31.7 trillion in 2025. ^[18]^

The Friction

Despite this massive volume, the infrastructure for cross-border payments is remarkably primitive. The dominant network is SWIFT, which processes approximately $150 trillion in messages annually. ^[19]^ SWIFT does not actually move money; it sends messages between banks instructing them to update their respective ledgers. The actual settlement occurs through a network of correspondent banking relationships, where each bank in the chain updates its own ledger and takes a fee. The result is a system where a simple international wire transfer can take one to five business days to settle and cost between $25 and $50 in direct fees, plus an additional 1% to 3% in foreign exchange conversion costs. ^[1][5]^ A joint study by Oxford Economics and FISGlobal estimated that financial inefficiencies, including cross-border payment friction, cost a single multinational enterprise nearly $100 million per year. ^[20]^

The Onli Solution

Onli eliminates correspondent banking entirely. A Genome representing fiat value transfers directly from the sender's Vault to the receiver's Vault in milliseconds, settling atomically on the Onli One network. There is no correspondent bank chain. There is no FX conversion. There is no settlement delay. The only cost is the $0.05 issuance fee paid when the payment Genome is first minted; after that, it can be transferred, split, or aggregated at zero cost forever. For a multinational enterprise processing $100 million in annual cross-border payments at a conservative average cost of 2%, the current annual cost is $2 million. On Onli, assuming 10,000 payment instruments are minted annually, the total cost is $6,500. The savings are 99.7%.

The Onli Revenue Model

Because the cross-border payment market is so large, even microscopic penetration generates significant revenue. If Onli captures 0.01% of the $31.7 trillion B2B market ($3.17 billion in volume), and assuming an average payment size of $5,000, this requires 634,000 new payment Genomes annually. At $0.05 per issuance, the direct revenue is $31,700. Platform subscription and treasury deployment revenue from the enterprises and financial institutions required to process this volume compounds this figure substantially.

Corporate Treasury: The Internal Friction

TAM: $100 Trillion+ in Annual Flows Even when money is not crossing borders, moving it within a single multinational corporation is surprisingly expensive. Corporate treasury departments manage the liquidity of global enterprises by pooling cash from subsidiaries, funding operations, managing FX exposure, and optimizing returns on idle cash. The tools they use to do this are fundamentally custodial: bank accounts, wire transfers, and Treasury Management Systems that aggregate data from external bank ledgers. The global corporate treasury management software market is projected to reach $16.3 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 14.2%. ^[22]^ This software market exists entirely because moving money between a corporation's own accounts is so complex and expensive that enterprises need dedicated software just to track and manage the process.

The Friction

According to Bastion's analysis of global cash management costs, 51% of enterprise financial friction occurs when money is moving between internal accounts and entities, not across borders, but within the same corporate group. ^[23]^ A multinational enterprise with 50 subsidiaries in 30 countries might process thousands of intercompany transfers per month, each incurring wire fees, FX conversion costs, and reconciliation labor. Enterprise-grade TMS solutions from vendors like Kyriba, SAP Treasury, and FIS cost between $150,000 and $500,000 per year in licensing fees alone, plus implementation costs that can reach $1 million or more. ^[24]^ And critically, these systems do not actually move the money; they merely provide visibility into the custodial ledgers maintained by the corporation's banking partners. The actual movement of funds still requires wire transfers, with all their associated costs and delays.

The Onli Solution

Onli allows a corporate treasury to act as its own bank. By deploying an Onli Treasury, a corporation can mint digital representations of its cash reserves and move them instantly between global subsidiaries with zero variable cost. The Genome representing a $10 million intercompany transfer moves from the parent company's Vault to the subsidiary's Vault in milliseconds, settling atomically, with no correspondent bank, no wire fee, no FX conversion, and no reconciliation required. The TMS software becomes unnecessary, because the Onli Cloud platform provides complete treasury visibility and management in a single interface. The banking fees become unnecessary, because the Genomes settle directly. The reconciliation labor becomes unnecessary, because the Genome's state is mathematically verifiable at any point in time.

The Onli Revenue Model

If Onli captures 500 multinational enterprises as corporate treasury customers:

By Year 3, the issuance percentage drops to 10%, reducing issuance revenue to $250,000 while platform revenue remains stable. The enterprise has saved tens of millions in wire fees and TMS licensing costs, making the Onli subscription a trivial line item with extraordinary ROI.

Real-World Asset Tokenization: Ownership Without Custody

TAM: $2 Trillion – $18.9 Trillion by 2030 The tokenization of real-world assets (real estate, private equity, fine art, commodities, and private credit) is one of the most actively discussed trends in institutional finance. The premise is straightforward: by representing ownership of a physical or financial asset as a digital token, it becomes possible to fractionalize the asset, increase its liquidity, and enable global trading without the friction of traditional settlement systems. The market projections are universally large, though they vary significantly depending on the scope of assets included. McKinsey & Company estimates that tokenized financial assets could reach $2.0 to $2.5 trillion by 2030. ^[25]^ ARK Invest projects the tokenized asset market will reach $11 trillion by 2030. ^[26]^ Boston Consulting Group and ADDX are the most bullish, estimating the market will reach $16 trillion by 2030, representing approximately 10% of global GDP. ^[27]^

The Friction

The friction in the RWA market is not primarily regulatory; it is infrastructural. The dominant approach to tokenization today uses blockchain-based smart contracts to represent ownership of assets. This approach has three critical weaknesses. First, smart contracts are expensive to develop and audit. A production-grade smart contract for a tokenized real estate fund can cost $500,000 to $2 million in development and audit fees before a single asset is tokenized. Second, smart contracts are vulnerable to exploits: according to Chainalysis, over $3.8 billion was lost to smart contract exploits in 2022 alone. ^[28]^ Third, and most fundamentally, smart contract tokenization does not actually create digital property; it creates a record of ownership in a custodial ledger. The asset itself remains in the custody of a traditional institution. The token is a claim on the asset, not the asset itself.

The Onli Solution

Onli reframes tokenization entirely. Traditional blockchain provides a record of the asset. Onli provides the asset itself. Because the Genome is the property (not a record of the property), ownership is mathematically provable without relying on a smart contract, a blockchain, or any custodial institution.

The Onli Revenue Model

If Onli captures 1.0% of the conservative $2 trillion McKinsey projection ($20 billion in tokenized assets), and assuming an average asset fractionalization size of $1,000, this requires 20 million issuances. At $0.05 per issuance, the direct revenue is $1 million annually: a high-margin, automated revenue stream that scales linearly with the growth of the tokenization market.

OTC Derivatives: The Collateral Drag

TAM: $846 Trillion Notional Outstanding The Over-The-Counter derivatives market is the largest financial market in the world by notional value. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the notional outstanding of global OTC derivatives rose to $846 trillion by the end of 2024. ^[6]^ This figure represents the total face value of all outstanding derivative contracts (interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, FX forwards, and equity derivatives) traded bilaterally between financial institutions. To put this number in context: $846 trillion is approximately 30 times the annual GDP of the entire world. The derivatives market is not a market for assets; it is a market for risk. Derivatives allow financial institutions to hedge their exposure to interest rate movements, currency fluctuations, credit events, and commodity price changes. They are essential tools for managing risk in the global financial system.

The Friction

The friction in the derivatives market is concentrated in two areas: collateral management and settlement. To mitigate counterparty risk, financial institutions are required to post collateral against their derivative exposures. According to ISDA's Margin Survey, the global derivatives industry posts approximately $1.4 trillion in initial margin annually. ^[29]^ The operational cost of managing this collateral is estimated at 0.5% to 1.0% of the collateral amount, or $7 billion to $14 billion per year globally. Despite decades of post-crisis reform, the majority of OTC derivatives still settle on a T+2 or T+3 basis, requiring complex reconciliation between counterparties and their custodians. Clearing fees, settlement fees, and the cost of maintaining the legal and operational infrastructure for bilateral OTC trading consume billions of dollars annually.

The Onli Solution

By utilizing Onli Genomes, derivative contracts and their associated collateral can be programmed to settle atomically. The collateral Genome is held in a mathematically verifiable state of possession: neither party can access it until the conditions of the derivative contract are met. If a counterparty defaults, the collateral Genome automatically evolves to its next valid state in the non-defaulting party's Vault. There is no need for a central clearinghouse, no settlement delay, and no reconciliation required.

The Onli Revenue Model

The derivatives vertical is the longest adoption horizon of the seven, due to its regulatory complexity and the deeply entrenched infrastructure of the existing market. However, the revenue potential is correspondingly enormous. Even a 0.001% capture of the clearing and settlement fee revenue in an $846 trillion market represents a multi-billion dollar annual opportunity.

Digital Asset Infrastructure: The Meta-Layer

TAM: $1.88 Trillion (Blockchain Infrastructure by 2034) The final vertical is not a specific industry; it is the infrastructure layer beneath all of them. The blockchain infrastructure market encompasses the cloud providers, node operators, and blockchain-as-a-service companies that power the Web3 ecosystem. Grand View Research projects this market will reach $1.88 trillion by 2034, growing at a CAGR of 87.7%. ^[30]^ But Onli's true comparable market is every enterprise that currently uses digital assets. Onli competes at the primitive layer beneath all seven verticals described in this paper. Every enterprise that deploys a blockchain-based solution today is a potential Onli customer tomorrow.

The Friction

As Gartner famously noted, 87% of enterprise blockchain pilots stall before production, and 90% of those that do launch require replacement within 18 months. ^[31]^ The failure rate is driven by the sheer cost and complexity of maintaining decentralized custodial ledgers. The average enterprise blockchain implementation costs $2 million to $5 million in Year 1 alone, driven primarily by the engineering labor required to build, audit, and deploy smart contracts. ^[32]^ This cost does not decrease as the platform scales; it increases, because more nodes are required to maintain performance and more engineers are required to maintain the smart contracts. Every failed enterprise blockchain pilot is a highly qualified lead for an Onli Treasury deployment.

The Onli Revenue Model

If Onli converts just 1,000 failed blockchain pilots into Onli deployments over the next five years:

Plus issuance revenue as these enterprises begin minting assets on the Onli network.

Conclusion: The Small Slice of a Very Large Pie

The seven verticals analyzed in this paper represent a combined Total Addressable Market measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. The friction embedded in these markets represents hundreds of billions of dollars in annual waste. Onli does not need to capture these entire markets. It needs only to be the obvious choice for the enterprises, financial institutions, and developers who are already looking for a better way. The following table summarizes the conservative revenue capture model across all seven verticals at modest penetration rates:

The numbers speak for themselves. The paradigm shift is not a question of whether. It is a question of when.

References

[1] Routefusion. "Why Local Payment Networks Beat SWIFT on Cost." April 2025. routefusion.com [2] International Monetary Fund (IMF). "Global Cross-Border Payments: A $1 Quadrillion Evolving Market." Working Paper WP/25/114, June 2025. imf.org [3] Apple Inc. "App Store Review Guidelines." developer.apple.com [4] International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). "ICC Trade Register Report." 2023. iccwbo.org [5] World Bank. "Remittance Prices Worldwide Quarterly." Q1 2025. remittanceprices.worldbank.org [6] Bank for International Settlements (BIS). "Key Trends in the Size and Composition of OTC Derivatives Markets in the Second Half of 2024." July 2025. bis.org [7] Fortune Business Insights. "Online Gaming Market Size, Share & Growth Forecast 2034." March 2026. fortunebusinessinsights.com [8] Newzoo. "2025 Global Games Market Report." September 2025. newzoo.com [9] Coherent Market Insights. "Virtual Goods Market Size, Share and Forecast, 2026-2033." February 2026. [10] Bond Brand Loyalty. "The Loyalty Report 2023." bondbrandloyalty.com [11] UpNonStop. "The Ghost Economy: How Unredeemed Points Became the World's Most Profitable Liability." upnonstop.com [12] Rivo.io. "15 Points Expiry Impact Statistics." February 2026. rivo.io [13] Goldman Sachs. "The Creator Economy Could Approach Half-a-Trillion Dollars by 2027." August 2023. [14] Bond Brand Loyalty program cost benchmarking data, 2023. [15] Global Market Insights. "Trade Finance Market Size, Share & Growth Forecast, 2024-2032." 2024. gminsights.com [16] World Supply Chain Finance Report 2024. BCR Publishing. coastlinesolutions.com [17] Asian Development Bank (ADB). "Demand for Trade Finance to Rise Amid Supply Chain Realignment." January 15, 2026. adb.org [18] FXC Intelligence. "B2B cross-border payments in 2025: A year in data." December 2025. [19] SWIFT. "SWIFT Annual Review 2024." swift.com [20] Oxford Economics and FISGlobal. "The Hidden Costs of Financial Disharmony." 2024. [21] The Payments Association. "Cross-Border Payments 2026: Friction and Reform." 2026. thepaymentsassociation.org [22] MarketsandMarkets. "Treasury Management System Market." 2024. marketsandmarkets.com [23] Bastion. "Why Global Cash Management Costs Enterprises Millions in Hidden Fees." 2025. bastion.com [24] Kyriba. Enterprise Treasury Management pricing. kyriba.com [25] McKinsey & Company. "From Ripples to Waves: The Transformational Power of Tokenizing Assets." June 2023. mckinsey.com [26] ARK Invest. "Big Ideas 2024." ark-invest.com [27] Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and ADDX. "Relevance of On-Chain Asset Tokenization in Crypto Winter." 2022. bcg.com [28] Chainalysis. "2023 Crypto Crime Report." chainalysis.com [29] International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). "Margin Survey Year-End 2023." isda.org [30] Grand View Research. "Blockchain Technology Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report." 2024. grandviewresearch.com [31] Gartner. "Blockchain Hype Cycle." 2022. [32] Deloitte. "Blockchain Survey." 2022. deloitte.com