Where attn Sits Next to Avici, Slash, Krak, Pye, Wildcat, Altitude, 3Jane, Xitadel, Colossus, Moto Card, Klarna + Tempo, and Pareto.credit

Avici.money is building a Solana-native, internet neobank aimed at replacing the traditional retail bank account:

• self-custodial Visa spend cards connected to stablecoin balances, usable at 150M+ merchants
• USD/EUR accounts via regulated partners for salary deposit and on-/off-ramp
• an “internet native” Trust Score designed as a credit primitive for unsecured lending
• a roadmap that explicitly includes unsecured loans, personal and business credit lines, and home mortgages funded from onchain investor pools

Their go-to-market emphasises a set of tightly coupled “network effect nodes”:

• Trust Score – a programmable, onchain credit identity and scoring primitive
• Payroll accounts (smart wallets) – where users receive paychecks in USD, EUR, or stablecoins
• Employers ⇆ employees – payroll networks where employers pay through Avici rails
• Visa spend card – the front-end to everyday spend and interchange
• Credit layer – unsecured loans, major credit lines, and eventually mortgages for users with strong Trust Scores

The intended loop is:

• users and employers adopt Avici for payroll and everyday spend,
• data from those flows and other signals feeds the Trust Score,
• the Trust Score unlocks unsecured loans and mortgages financed by onchain credit pools,
• those loans, in turn, further embed Avici as a primary financial home.

Governance and capital formation are designed to be DAO-driven:

• the ICO is structured with no team allocation and a monthly allowance from the treasury, gated by futarchy-style decision markets rather than a trusted multisig,
• the long-term goal is a distributed internet banking infrastructure that reduces dependence on central banks and fiat interest-rate policy.

Relative to attn.markets:

• Avici is where people bank:

  • receive salaries and income,
  • hold balances in stablecoins and fiat,
  • spend via Visa,
  • and, over time, access unsecured loans and mortgages using a Trust Score.

• attn.markets is where apps, DAOs, creators, and networks bank their revenue streams:

  • route protocol/creator fees into governed revenue accounts,
  • borrow against those revenues,
  • and pool revenue-backed PT/YT positions into attnUSD.

In a realistic stack:

• an employer or DAO might pay contributors into Avici accounts and cards,
• while the protocol or app’s own revenue PDAs are wired into attn.markets for advances and revolving credit.

Avici is an internet neobank and trust-score credit layer for people and payroll; attn.markets is a revenue-native credit engine for the entities and apps generating the income that flows into those personal rails.

Slash is a business banking and expense-management platform:

• FDIC-insured business checking via partner banks.
• Unlimited virtual and physical corporate cards with cashback and fine-grained controls (card groups, merchant limits, country restrictions, etc.).
• Stablecoin payments and on/off-ramps for major stablecoins.
• A Global USD Account where balances are represented by USDSL, Slash’s own USD-pegged stablecoin backed by high-quality liquid assets and issued on a modern L2 via a stablecoin infrastructure partner.

The card stack has two main components:

• A debit card tied directly to the business checking balance.
• A premium charge-style card (e.g. “Slash Platinum”) issued by a partner bank, where the outstanding balance is due in full on a very short cycle (often daily).

In other words:

• For day-to-day card usage, credit exposure is very short-term (charge-card style), with the issuing bank acting as lender of record.
• Limits and risk are managed through entity-level underwriting plus spend controls (card groups, merchant/country filters, real-time authorization hooks).

For longer-tenor credit, Slash offers Working Capital:

• Working-capital loans and lines are delivered in partnership with a specialist fintech lender and a chartered bank that originates the loans.
• Users apply via a flow embedded in the Slash dashboard; the lending partner underwrites and sets a line.
• Drawdowns are credited into a dedicated account inside Slash and can then be spent using the same cards and payment workflows as regular funds.
• Terms are typically structured around 30/60/90-day horizons to match business cash-flow cycles.

Global USD + USDSL add a cross-border and onchain dimension:

• Non-U.S. entities can access a USD account without needing a U.S. LLC, hold a USDSL-denominated balance, and send/receive stablecoins and fiat rails (wires, ACH, local transfers) from one place.
• USDSL is effectively a closed-loop stablecoin that underpins those balances; rewards on Global USD are structured as promotional rebates funded by Slash, not as onchain interest paid by the issuer.

Relative to attn.markets:

• Slash is where the entity banks and spends:

  • fiat and stablecoin accounts,
  • corporate cards,
  • wires/ACH/local transfers,
  • stablecoin rails.

• attn.markets is where onchain revenues are treated as collateral:

  • Solana-native revenue accounts,
  • revenue-backed advances and credit lines,
  • a pooled USD share token (attnUSD) backed by revenue PT/YT positions.

A Web3 protocol or creator can reasonably:

• funnel onchain revenues into an attn.markets revenue account for credit and yield,
• then move funds (via bridge/off-ramp) into a Slash account or Global USD,
• and use Slash cards and payments to cover fiat suppliers, ad spend, and operations.

In that stack, Slash is the regulated business-banking and card front end, while attn.markets is a revenue-backed credit engine for onchain-native clients.

Krak is a global money app from Kraken:

• A personal Everyday account that can hold and move 400+ fiat and crypto assets.
• Global, low-friction transfers to 160+ countries, often framed as “send like a message” using handles (Kraktags) instead of IBANs.
• Auto-earn on eligible balances (e.g. a base APY on holdings) plus vaults for higher, DeFi-like yields on selected assets.
• A cashback/refunds and rewards layer tied to usage and balances.

The centrepiece for everyday spending is Krak Card:

• A Mastercard debit card (virtual + physical) linked to the Krak Everyday account.
• Lets you spend from your balance of 400+ assets (fiat and crypto) at any Mastercard merchant worldwide, plus ATM withdrawals.
• Multi-asset spend: you set a spend order in-app; Krak converts assets in that order into your primary currency (GBP for UK, EUR for EEA) at the time of authorization, combining multiple assets if needed.
• No FX / foreign transaction fees on card spend, and no annual/monthly fee; a spread on conversion may apply but is built into the quoted rate.
• Cashback:
  • Up to around 1% base cashback on everyday spend, paid in either local fiat or Bitcoin.
  • Boosted cashback (e.g. higher rewards on travel booked via Krak’s concierge/partners).
  • Reward rate tiers that depend on the average assets you hold across Krak/Kraken/Kraken Pro.

Krak is explicitly positioned as a bank alternative:

• Salary deposits / direct deposit into the Krak Everyday account.
• Global transfers and P2P, including to non-crypto-native users, with a UX similar to neobanks.
• “Spend, send, grow” framing: card, transfers, and yields in a single consumer app.

Relative to attn.markets:

• Krak is where people hold and spend their money (fiat + crypto) and earn yield.
• attn.markets is where apps, creators, DAOs, and networks centralise and collateralise their revenue streams.

You can imagine a full loop:

• A creator or protocol routes its fees into an attn.markets revenue account, borrows against them, and/or issues PT/YT and attnUSD.
• That income pays out contributors or users who custody and spend via Krak.
• Krak is the personal front-end; attn.markets is the project-level revenue and credit engine behind some of the flows that land in it.

Pye.fi focuses on Solana staking yield:

• staked positions are decomposed into:
  • a principal component
  • a yield component
• and those pieces can be traded or structured separately

The underlying risk is:

• validator and protocol performance
• staking rewards and MEV
• stake mechanics

attn.markets uses a similar “principal / yield” mental model but with a different underlying:

• protocol and creator revenues, not validator rewards

Where Pye.fi enables positions around future staking income,
attn.markets enables positions around future protocol and creator income:

• revenue advances
• revenue-backed credit lines
• pooled revenue yield via a USD share token
• plus base-layer yield on idle balances in revenue accounts, where appropriate

In short:

• Pye.fi = slicing up stake yield
• attn.markets = slicing up business revenue

Wildcat.finance builds undercollateralised credit markets:

• vetted borrowers deploy their own loan “markets” with:
  • fixed terms
  • reserve requirements
  • withdrawal rules
• lenders deposit stablecoins into those markets and earn interest

Protection there comes from:

• market design (reserves, penalties, lockups)
• whitelists and screening
• optional off-chain legal agreements
• the borrower’s reputation

attn.markets is more prescriptive about what backs the loan:

• credit is explicitly backed by tokenised revenue streams:
  • revenues are routed into a dual-controlled vault (e.g. Squads 2/2)
  • those revenues mint PT (principal) and YT (future revenue) claims
  • advances and credit lines are written directly against those PT/YT/SY positions

At a high level:

• Wildcat.finance = structured undercollateralised credit where “collateral” is mostly reputation + market parameters
• attn.markets = undercollateralised credit anchored in concrete, wired revenue flows and their PT/YT tokens

Altitude (Squads.xyz) is a stablecoin-powered financial product for businesses:

• USD and EUR “accounts” backed by stablecoins, with local details for ACH, wire and SEPA transfers
• tools for sending and receiving bank transfers and stablecoin payments through the same interface
• yield on balances via short-term U.S. Treasuries, presented as an APY on idle cash
• multi-user controls, approvals, and workflows aimed at ops and finance teams
• roadmap features like corporate cards and a CFO tool suite (invoicing, bill pay, accounting)

It is positioned as:

• a replacement or complement to traditional business bank accounts
• with global availability and onchain settlement under the hood

attn.markets sits alongside this, rather than inside the same problem:

• Altitude (Squads.xyz) focuses on where your stablecoin cash lives, how it earns low-risk yield, and how you pay people
• attn.markets focuses on how your onchain revenues are routed, pledged, financed, and optionally put to work while idle

A single protocol or DAO could reasonably:

• hold operating cash, payroll, and vendors in an Altitude (Squads.xyz)-style account
• route protocol / creator revenues into an attn.markets revenue account for financing and base yield
• treat attnUSD as a separate credit-yield sleeve on top of its core treasury

Altitude (Squads.xyz) is treasury and payments; attn.markets is revenue-backed structuring, credit, and revenue-native yield.

3Jane.xyz is a credit-based money market on Ethereum:

• borrowers receive unsecured USDC credit lines with no onchain collateral posted,
• underwriting uses a multi-source credit engine:
  • onchain DeFi / CEX / RWA positions across many protocols and asset types,
  • offchain credit data (e.g. credit scores, income, bank balances) verified via secure attestations,
  • combined into a proprietary score and limits model.
• capital suppliers deposit USDC to mint USD3, a yield-bearing stablecoin that represents a share of the credit pool,
• USD3 can be staked into sUSD3 for levered exposure to the same credit book.

This implies a different trust and privacy model:

• 3Jane.xyz’s lines depend on linking wallets to real-world financial accounts and credit data.
• attn.markets does not require any of that. attn.markets underwrites strictly from onchain revenue routing into governed revenue accounts.

The core mechanics:

• Borrower side

  • target segment today is high-balance users and entities with substantial verified assets and strong scores,
  • credit lines are sized by aggregate verified assets and credit quality,
  • minimum payments and utilisation rules are enforced offchain via legal agreements and, if needed, collections.

• LP side

  • suppliers face a diversified pool of unsecured lines,
  • yield is driven by interest and fees on those lines,
  • loss protection uses an insurance / first-loss structure plus diversification and conservative caps on pool utilisation.

How this differs from attn.markets:

• Collateral type

  • 3Jane.xyz: lines are economically unsecured at the onchain level; protection relies on verified asset snapshots, credit scores, and enforceable legal recourse.
  • attn.markets: positions are explicitly secured by live revenue routing into governed revenue accounts (e.g. fee PDAs, creator rewards, machine income), with programmable waterfalls on those flows.

• Who it primarily serves

  • 3Jane.xyz: credit accounts for individuals and entities with substantial, verifiable asset footprints and credit histories.
  • attn.markets: revenue infrastructure for apps, DAOs, creators, and networks that want to fund work directly out of protocol or creator income, often natively pseudonymous and global.

• What the yield token represents

  • 3Jane.xyz’s USD3: a yield-bearing USDC-like asset whose backing is a pool of unsecured credit lines.
  • attnUSD: a USD share in a portfolio of revenue-backed PT/YT positions and stablecoins, where each position is tied to a specified revenue account and routing schedule.

You can think of it this way:

• 3Jane.xyz is building a future-yield credit account for asset-rich users, with unsecured lines mapped to a yield-bearing stablecoin.
• attn.markets is building revenue-native banking rails for apps and creators, where specific fee and reward streams sit in revenue accounts, support advances and credit lines, and roll up into a pooled revenue-backed USD token.

They share:

• the belief that future cashflows (not just static collateral) can back credit,
• the use of a yield-bearing USD token as an access point for LP capital.

They differ in:

• what they treat as primary collateral (multi-source balance sheets vs wired revenues),
• which users they optimise for,
• and how much they lean on offchain credit and legal enforcement versus onchain revenue routing.

Pareto.credit is a private credit marketplace that connects institutional lenders and borrowers and bridges institutional capital into onchain credit markets.

The core primitive is the Credit Vault (CV):

• Credit Vaults are smart-contract vaults that hold deposited stablecoins and lend them directly to whitelisted borrowers.
• Only borrowers that pass offchain diligence and are explicitly whitelisted can draw from a given vault, and only verified users (via privacy-preserving KYC) can provide liquidity.
• Vaults operate in lending cycles (typically 1–4 weeks) with fixed or variable interest-rate models, allowing high utilisation while keeping duration short and risk observable.
• Compliance and verification are baked into the vault flow, making it easier to serve regulated counterparties.

On top of Credit Vaults, Pareto runs USP and sUSP:

• USP is a synthetic dollar ERC-20 minted 1:1 against major stablecoins deposited into the ParetoDollar contract. Those stablecoins are then allocated into Credit Vaults (and a small portion into ERC-4626 yield sources for liquidity), so USP is effectively backed by a portfolio of private-credit exposures plus a peg-stability reserve.
• sUSP is a staked form of USP. Users stake USP into sUSP to receive the interest generated by the underlying credit portfolio; yield accrues as an increase in sUSP’s redemption rate vs USP, making sUSP an onchain savings asset.
• A peg-stability mechanism and dedicated stability fund are designed to keep USP around $1 while allocating credit risk and losses primarily to sUSP holders.

This stack is aimed squarely at:

• asset managers and digital asset funds that want onchain access to institutional-grade private credit,
• borrowers such as funds, market-makers, and real-world credit platforms that can be onboarded and monitored offchain.

Relative to attn.markets:

• Collateral and risk

  • Pareto.credit’s positions are backed by real-world private-credit receivables and institutional strategies, accessed through KYC/whitelisted vaults and legal agreements.
  • attn.markets’ positions are backed by live onchain revenues of apps, creators, DAOs, and networks, routed into governed revenue accounts.

• Users and access model

  • Pareto.credit is institution-first: lenders must clear verification, and borrowers are curated; risk lives in structured private-credit deals.
  • attn.markets is onchain-native: there is no KYC, and entities are evaluated by their revenue performance and onchain behaviour.

• Dollar-like tokens

  • Pareto’s USP aims to maintain a $1 synthetic-dollar profile while yielding via sUSP; its backing is a portfolio of institutional private credit plus reserves.
  • Attn’s attnUSD is a variable-NAV USD share token whose value is tied to a portfolio of revenue-backed PT/YT positions and stablecoins, not a hard peg.

In a combined stack:

• a protocol or DAO might keep part of its treasury in USP/sUSP to earn yield from institutional private credit,
• while simultaneously routing its own protocol/creator revenues into attn.markets for revenue-backed advances and credit lines.

Pareto.credit is thus best viewed as a bridge for institutional private credit into DeFi, while attn.markets is a bridge between onchain revenues and credit/yield, particularly for Solana-native apps, creators, and DAOs.

Xitadel.fi focuses on project treasuries and native tokens:

• projects lock a portion of their treasury (typically native tokens) into a collateral vault,
• against that collateral they mint Liquid Treasury Tokens (LTTs), which are:
  • overcollateralised,
  • fixed-term,
  • designed to behave like onchain bond instruments for the project,
• investors buy LTTs with stablecoins and receive a defined return profile over the term.

The underlying object is:

• the token treasury and its market value,
• not the live revenue stream of the protocol or creator.

The protection stack includes:

• collateral ratios and coverage thresholds,
• automated monitoring and liquidation rules over the treasury backing,
• standardised issuance and reporting, so investors know what is backing each LTT.

attn.markets looks at a different part of the same balance sheet:

• Xitadel.fi: “How much capital can you raise against the tokens you already hold in your treasury?”
• attn.markets: “How much capital can you raise against the revenues your system produces over time?”

In practice, a project could:

• use Xitadel.fi to unlock a slice of its native-token treasury via LTTs,
• route protocol or app revenues into an attn.markets revenue account to back advances and credit lines,
• and let attnUSD or other credit LPs selectively hold LTTs as part of a broader revenue and credit book.

Xitadel.fi is a treasury-debt layer; attn.markets is a revenue-debt and revenue-yield layer.

Colossus.credit positions itself as a stablecoin credit-card and payments network built as an Ethereum L2. Public materials emphasize:

• compatibility with existing EMV card terminals,
• using account abstraction (ERC-4337) so card taps can authorize onchain transactions,
• very fast “preconfirmation” for card authorization,
• vertical integration of issuer, processor, and network to reduce fees.

There is limited detail available so far beyond the landing-page narrative. No full technical specification, developer documentation set, or public codebase is clearly exposed yet. The project appears early in its process, with many implementation and go-to-market specifics still undisclosed.

Colossus.credit is adjacent to attn.markets only at the highest level (both are financial infrastructure). It targets consumer/merchant payment rails; attn.markets targets revenue-collateralised credit and yield for onchain businesses.

Executive Summary

Moto Card is an exclusive, AI-enabled Visa Infinite credit card designed for entrepreneurs, tastemakers, and crypto power users, leveraging blockchain technology to offer a “self-paying” mechanism where yields on deposits offset monthly balances. It combines a high-yield savings wallet with credit card spending, earning up to 10% interest on deposits and up to 6% back in Moto Points on purchases, redeemable for luxury goods. The card positions itself as a blockchain-powered credit card, allowing users to deposit funds, accrue yield even after they spend, and settle debts monthly for capital efficiency. Integrated AI acts as a personal agent for purchases, reservations, and travel discovery, enhancing the user experience. While details on underlying mechanics are sparse due to its early-stage, waitlist-only status, Moto appears to target crypto-savvy individuals with a blend of fintech and DeFi elements. In contrast to attn.markets’ B2B revenue-backed lending, Moto focuses on consumer-level credit and yield generation.

How Moto Works

From limited public information, Moto appears to work roughly as follows:

• One-sentence description
  Moto Card is an AI-powered, blockchain-enabled Visa Infinite credit card that uses deposit yields to “self-pay” monthly debts for a select group of crypto-savvy users.

• Detailed description
  Moto operates as a hybrid fintech product blending a high-yield crypto/fiat wallet, revolving credit card, and AI concierge, exclusively available via waitlist to entrepreneurs, tastemakers, and crypto power users. Users deposit funds into a wallet, earning up to an advertised 10% interest, which is framed as continuing to accrue even on amounts that have been spent until the monthly balance is repaid, effectively offsetting spending costs (for example, a $10,000 deposit at 10% APR generates roughly $83/month, covering about 8.3% of a $1,000 monthly spend). The card is positioned as true revolving credit, with free spending and monthly statements, where the “self-paying” feature leverages accrued yield to reduce or sometimes fully offset net debt. AI integration provides a chat-based personal agent for tasks like making purchases, booking reservations, or exploring travel, tied directly into the card and wallet. Blockchain is referenced as powering backend elements like yield generation and possibly settlements, although specifics are not disclosed.

• User signup
  Users join via a waitlist on the website, effectively signing up for a card, a linked wallet/account, and access to the AI assistant. Public information does not fully describe onboarding, but it likely includes standard KYC for compliance, invite or referral gating for exclusivity, and a focus on crypto-native and high-spend users rather than the mass market.

• Onboarding
  The card is invite-only. It likely includes KYC/AML checks and may focus on crypto power users and entrepreneurs, potentially using offchain data (income, credit file) and/or onchain behaviour. Geography, exact eligibility, and regulator-facing details are not yet clearly disclosed.

• Payment method
  Moto is positioned as a true credit card rather than a debit or pure charge card. Users receive monthly statements and can, in principle, revolve balances, though the marketing emphasises paying in full to maximise the “self-paying” effect.

• Deposits
  Users deposit fiat and/or crypto into a Moto wallet. Funds are held in a blockchain-powered or blockchain-adjacent custody setup (infra details and supported chains are not yet fully public). Deposits appear to influence credit limits and act as a form of soft collateral while earning yield.

• “Self-paying” behaviour
  Yield accrues on deposits over time and is marketed as offsetting the card’s balance automatically or via user election. In the ideal case, if yield plus rewards roughly equals the monthly statement, the card “pays itself.” If the user spends more than the yield generated, they still benefit from a reduced effective APR. Unpaid balances may revolve with interest, but yield is framed as continuing to accrue on the underlying deposit base.

• AI integration
  A built-in AI agent is exposed through the Moto app or interface. The agent can handle card-related actions (e.g., making purchases, booking reservations, planning trips) and act as a spending and lifestyle concierge for cardholders.

• Yield mechanics
  Marketing references “up to 10% interest” on deposits, but the specific strategies (DeFi lending, RWAs, market making, staking, internal trading, etc.) are not disclosed. It is likely a mix of yield sources and internal spread-taking, but details remain opaque.

• Points on spend
  Moto advertises “up to 6% in Moto Points on every purchase,” with a tiered or campaign-based structure not fully detailed publicly. Points are redeemable for flights, hotels, and luxury goods, alongside Visa Infinite-style perks such as concierge and lounges.

• Cashflow loop (conceptual)

  • User deposits funds into Moto.
  • Deposits earn yield (framed as up to 10% APR).
  • User spends on the Moto Visa Infinite credit card and earns Moto Points.
  • A monthly statement is generated.
  • Yield accumulated over the period, plus any points redemption, partially or fully offsets the bill.
  • The user pays at least the required amount; if they revolve, standard interest may apply, while yield continues to be earned on deposits.

• Yield clarifications
  Marketing suggests yield is paid on the full deposit balance and may continue to accrue even on portions that have effectively been “used” to back spending, as long as the deposit remains. The degree to which this is exact vs illustrative is not yet known; documentation does not fully detail how yield interacts with outstanding credit balances under the hood.

• Stack / infrastructure
  Moto uses the Visa network (Visa Infinite tier) for global acceptance. Wallet and identity infrastructure publicly mention Privy and blockchain-based components, but exact chains, token formats, and onchain vs offchain ledger splits are not spelled out.

• Underwriting
  Limits appear to depend on deposits (quasi-collateralised), anticipated spend, and standard underwriting factors such as income or credit score. It is a classic revolving credit construct with monthly statements rather than a simple pay-in-4 BNPL structure.

• Risk / compliance
  As a crypto-fintech product, Moto almost certainly runs standard KYC/AML and partners with regulated financial institutions for issuing and settlement, but specifics (jurisdiction, licensing stack, regulators, supported geographies) are not yet clearly communicated in public materials.

• Economics / business model
  On Moto’s side, revenue likely comes from:

  • interchange on card spend,
  • net interest margin on revolving balances,
  • spread between what user deposits earn and what Moto earns on those funds,
  • any membership, FX, or ancillary fees.
    For end users, the card is “self-paying” to the degree that yield plus rewards approach or exceed monthly spend; beyond that, users still benefit from lower effective cost of credit, but not literally zero.

• Diagrammatic description (text)
  User deposits funds → [Moto wallet: yield accrues on deposits] → User spends on Visa Infinite card → [AI agent assists with spend and bookings] → Monthly statement generated → Yield and points offset the bill (“self-pay” loop) → User repays balance (full or partial) → Cycle repeats, with deposits continuously working in the background.

Where Moto Sits Next to attn.markets

• Moto operates at the consumer layer, providing individuals with a yield-generating wallet and credit card for personal spend and receivables.
• attn.markets operates at the entity/revenue layer, providing revenue-backed credit and pooled yield to apps, creators, DAOs, and networks based on onchain earnings.
• Moto underwrites individual cardholders (and their deposits and credit profiles), while attn.markets underwrites business and protocol revenues wired into revenue accounts.
• Moto could, in principle, integrate attn.markets on its own balance sheet by using revenue-backed lines to fund part of its yield or rewards commitments.
• Shared users (for example, creators using attn.markets to borrow against their revenue) could route those borrowed funds into Moto deposits, using the card for spend while their revenue-backed loans sit with attn.markets.

Open Questions / Unknowns

• Exact yield strategy: which underlying assets and protocols (RWAs, stablecoin lending desks, DeFi, staking) actually generate the advertised 10% interest?
• Credit limit determination: beyond deposits, what mix of credit file, income, and onchain reputation is used to size limits?
• Custody details: which blockchains are used, whether balances are tokenised, and how onchain vs offchain accounting is split.
• Fees: detailed schedule of FX, annual, late, or cash advance fees, if any.
• Licensing and geography: precise legal entity stack, regulators, and supported regions.
• AI depth: the concrete capabilities of the AI agent, and whether it can submit onchain or card transactions autonomously or only via user confirmation.
• Business model specifics: exact yield spreads, interchange economics, and whether there are premium tiers or memberships.
• Partnerships: issuing bank, BIN sponsor, and any disclosed infra partners beyond Visa and Privy.
• Repayment and default: how delinquencies are handled—whether deposits are pledged and automatically liquidated, and how revolving APRs are structured.
• Launch status: timing, pilot results, and any early user metrics or feedback as the product moves beyond waitlist.

Klarna is a large BNPL and checkout network that finances consumer purchases and collects instalments from shoppers on behalf of merchants. Its core risk book is consumer receivables and merchant performance, not protocol-level credit to other apps.

A USD-pegged stablecoin and the Tempo payments L1 add a crypto rail: the stablecoin is used to reduce costs for international payments and FX, and to route more settlement flow over a dedicated, EVM-compatible L1 optimised for high-volume, low-cost stablecoin transactions.

In that stack:

• Klarna handles:

  • consumer BNPL underwriting,
  • merchant integration and checkout UX,
  • collections on consumer instalments.

• Tempo provides:

  • payments-focused blockspace,
  • stablecoin settlement for Klarna and other partners,
  • an environment optimised for high-throughput, low-cost transactions.

Where attn.markets differs and could intersect:

• attn.markets does not take consumer risk or originate BNPL receivables.
• It could, however, lend to:
  • Klarna-style BNPL platforms as entities, against their net fee and interest revenue streams, or
  • merchants and platforms operating on Tempo that have predictable, onchain revenues.

In that setup:

• consumer instalments and credit risk stay on Klarna’s balance sheet (or similar BNPL providers),
• Tempo remains the payments and settlement L1,
• attn.markets is a separate revenue-backed credit engine that can fund BNPL providers or merchants at the entity level, without touching individual shoppers.

This keeps the boundary clear:

• Klarna/Tempo = consumer BNPL and payments rails,
• attn.markets = revenue-backed financing for businesses that happen to run over those rails.