The right share. To the right person.
The company needed more than a checkout. It needed every participant’s earnings, my developer share, recruitment rewards, and delivery costs to agree without repeated spreadsheets, separate fee collection, or manual recalculation at each withdrawal. I brought those responsibilities into one coordinated payment workflow.
From the idea
to the implementation.
- 01
Translate the business rules
I specified the 10% and 5% developer allocations, the 10-recruit qualification threshold, and the developer-funded 1% reward. I separated purchase settlement, eligible earnings, period close, and withdrawal so each stage has an exact financial meaning.
- 02
Build the chain of proof
I directed implementation across the Solidity purchase router, funded settlement vault, private accounting, and independent approval services. Signed earning evidence authorizes atomic model/developer transfers and bounded batches of up to 32 paired draws.
- 03
Exercise the difficult paths
Validation work covers split withdrawals, cumulative integer rounding, separate recipients, returned transfers, and uncertain delivery. The recorded contract and payout suites test these behaviors independently.
Decisions that
shape the system.
Make the agreement executable
Translate the 10% developer share, qualifying 5% rate, and developer-funded 1% direct-recruit reward into explicit accounting rules. Preserve the accounting period and evidence behind every approved balance.
Pay both sides together
A funded settlement vault sends the model’s allocation and my developer allocation in one atomic contract execution. If either token transfer fails, the execution reverts instead of leaving a half-completed split.
Reduce repeated settlement calls
Support up to 32 approved paired draws from one business vault in a single batch. The same allocation and authorization checks apply to each draw, and the batch succeeds or reverts together.
Automate within agreed limits
Scheduled execution respects approved destinations, minimum delivered amounts, maximum fees, and available funds. An unacceptable quote creates a visible hold; recovery follows the original obligation without collecting the fee twice.
- Verified purchase
- Approved earnings
- Signed allocation
- Paired settlement
- Reconciled delivery
Inside the implementation
The purchase router binds the exact order, amount, token, destination, and expiry. Private accounting determines eligible earnings and qualification, then independent accounting and approval authorities sign the same settlement evidence. The Solidity vault checks those approvals and enforces the actual USDC movement. A scheduler submits authorized transactions; a smart contract does not wake itself up. Customer, tax, and banking records stay outside the public contract, while transaction addresses and amounts remain visible on-chain.
THE PAYMENT AGREEMENT / ENFORCED IN SOFTWARE
Everyone’s share.
Handled together.
I designed the system so the company does not have to calculate a model’s payout, send it, and then separately work out what it owes me. Each approved withdrawal carries both allocations into the settlement contract.
90% model · 10% developer
My standard developer share is 10% of eligible after-tax, before-developer-fee income. On a $1,000 approved fee-bearing balance, the contract allocates $900 to the model and $100 to me.
95% model · 5% developer
After recruitment qualification, my share becomes 5% across the model’s eligible ecosystem income. On the same $1,000 balance, the model keeps $950 and I receive $50, before each party’s own cash-out costs.
One obligation. Any draw size.
The original accounting period fixes the approved developer obligation. Cumulative integer allocation keeps the total correct across partial withdrawals, so many small payouts cannot change the agreed fee.
Scheduled, bounded, traceable.
Approved mandates support daily, weekly, monthly, or cost-triggered execution. On-chain model and developer transfers are atomic; conversion and bank delivery have separate instructions and receipt tracking. A failed bank leg can be recovered without repeating a successful one.
These percentages apply to eligible approved earnings, not gross customer sales. Accounting establishes taxes, prior costs, and loss carry before settlement. The contract enforces the signed allocation; approved providers handle conversion and bank delivery.
RECRUITMENT / A PRECISE INCENTIVE SYSTEM
Reward growth.
Keep the rules clear.
10 direct recruits × $1,000
A model qualifies when 10 distinct direct recruits each reach $1,000 in cumulative eligible after-tax earnings. The system reconciles eligible earnings across sites and collaborations; moving money between accounts does not count as new income.
5%, beginning next month
The lower developer rate begins in the following UTC accounting month and applies model-wide across eligible sources. The original rate remains attached to earlier periods, making the transition predictable and auditable.
1%, funded by my treasury
A qualified recruiter earns 1% from each direct recruit in a month when that recruit reaches at least $1,000 in combined eligible after-tax earnings. This includes the first 10 recruits. The reward comes from developer funds; it does not add another 1% charge to the recruit.
$1,500 earns $15. $900 earns $0.
The monthly threshold determines reward eligibility. The policy engine calculates the obligation, approvals bind the evidence, and the funded treasury settles authorized rewards. If treasury funds are insufficient, the unpaid obligation remains visible instead of reducing the model’s payout.
FEWER EXECUTION CALLS / SAME ALLOCATION CHECKS
32 paired payouts.
One settlement call.
The settlement vault supports batching up to 32 approved source draws. Each draw pays both the model and developer allocations. At full capacity, that combines 32 separate paired execution calls into one: 31 fewer calls, a 96.875% reduction in execution-call count.
This is a capacity calculation from the implemented 32-draw limit in a single business vault. Recipient token transfers still occur inside the transaction. It does not mean 96.875% lower gas fees, fewer bank transfers, or a measured reduction across live company payments. Batching is used only when the approved instructions allow it.
THE ECONOMICS / AN ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO
The value of
owning the workflow.
A modeled comparison in the project asks what happens when a 13.5% processing assumption is replaced by a 1% route assumption. At $50,000 in monthly sales, the difference is $6,250 before additional costs. Explore the arithmetic below.
- Comparison route
- $6,750
- Proposed route + extra costs
- $500
- Annualized scenario
- $75,000
Illustrative assumptions. Not a quote or realized saving.
This comparison is a design scenario, not a record of money saved. Actual savings require approved provider pricing and measured transactions. It excludes the developer allocation and any costs not entered above. The baseline is an assumption, not a named competitor’s verified rate.
What the model retains
On the same $1,000 approved fee-bearing earnings balance, the standard 10% developer allocation leaves $900 for the model. A qualified 5% allocation leaves $950: $50 more retained per $1,000, before the model’s cash-out costs. That is a 50% reduction in this allocation—not a promise that total payment costs fall by half.
Qualification follows the agreed program rules. The approved balance is after prior costs and tax allocation; it is not the same base as gross sales. These examples explain the policy and are not added to the processing scenario above.
What the work
demonstrates.
The implementation joins purchase verification, private earnings accounting, smart-contract settlement, recruitment policy, payout scheduling, and a Windows management workspace. The commercial agreement becomes a traceable sequence from earned income to each recipient’s allocation, with explicit handling for partial withdrawals, failed transfers, and corrected accounting.
Why it matters to a client
This work demonstrates how I turn a complex commercial arrangement into an understandable product and an enforceable payment system—connecting business economics, automation, privacy, and recovery from the outset.
The modeling company is presented anonymously. Financial examples explain the implemented policy and its potential; they are not client revenue disclosures.