AuguryA Bank-Style Trick for Crypto: Tassat’s ‘Yield‑in‑Transit’ Lets Cash Earn While It Moves
This article was written by the Augury Times
Why the patent matters now
Tassat has been granted a U.S. patent for a method it calls “Yield‑in‑Transit.” In plain terms, the patent covers a way to capture short‑term interest on cash while it is moving between parties during settlement on a blockchain. That sounds small, but for banks, custodians and big asset managers, even a little extra yield on large daily flows can change economics.
The headline matters because many institutions are still figuring out how to move tokenized cash and tokenized assets without leaving money idle. If money can earn interest while it is technically “in transit,” firms can squeeze more income from the same balance sheet, lower the cost of trading, and improve the returns they offer clients. For investors in digital‑asset infrastructure and fintech, the patent is a signal: Tassat thinks it has a workable, protectable edge in a crowded infrastructure market.
How Yield‑in‑Transit works in everyday terms
Think of a typical bank transfer. Your payment leaves one account, sits somewhere in the plumbing for a while, then shows up in the recipient’s account. Traditionally, the cash that sits during that short window doesn’t earn interest for either side.
Tassat’s idea is to insert a controlled, transparent layer where that in‑transit cash is placed into an interest‑bearing setup for the short time it is unsettled. On a blockchain, that means the payment message and the value move in ways that let an on‑chain contract or a permissioned reserve account record who is entitled to any interest that accrues during settlement. The key point is that the interest is not a free lunch: it is tracked and allocated according to the settlement rules so that the rightful party receives it as part of clearing.
From a mechanics point of view, this can happen two ways. One is fully on‑chain: a smart contract takes custody of the value token for a few blocks, routes it into a short‑term yield pool or money‑market style instrument, and then releases principal plus earned interest to the recipient. The other is hybrid: an off‑chain custodian or settlement agent temporarily puts the cash into a pooled overnight vehicle, while on‑chain records show entitlement and final allocation.
For institutions, three technical pieces matter: secure custody of the funds while they earn yield, a clear and auditable record that shows who owns the earned yield, and fast settlement that returns principal when needed. The patent focuses on the rules and processes that make those three pieces work together in a regulated environment.
Who stands to gain: banks, custodians and asset managers
Institutions that handle large sums and many daily transactions stand to benefit most. Custodians who hold client cash can show better returns or lower fees if they can capture intraday yield. Broker‑dealers and market makers can lower their funding costs by squeezing yield from money already moving through their rails.
Asset managers that offer tokenized funds or that use tokenized cash for settlement can boost net yields slightly, which compounds across millions or billions in flows. For a manager such as Arca and other firms that blend token strategies with traditional funds, the ability to harvest intraday yield could improve performance reporting and client economics.
On the balance sheet, the effect is efficiency rather than dramatic profit. Firms might reduce the need for large, idle liquidity buffers or expensive intraday credit lines. That frees regulatory capital and reduces visible idle balances. But this only works if regulators and auditors accept the accounting treatment—whether interest earned during settlement is treated as income, client property, or part of margin flows.
Patent scope and the competitive landscape
A U.S. patent can give Tassat a legal lever, but patents in software and financial plumbing rarely act as airtight moats. The defensibility will come down to how narrow or broad the claims are. If the patent covers a specific technical flow—certain messages, contract states and custody handoffs—competitors can try alternate flows that achieve a similar business result without copying exact steps.
Enforcing a patent against open‑source blockchain projects and global firms is also messy. Blockchain code is public and runs across borders, and challengers can argue different implementations or prior art. Regulators may view this as a competition issue if a patented method becomes a de facto standard for institutional settlement. Standards bodies or cleared settlement networks might push for interoperable, non‑patented approaches, or for licensing terms that keep markets open.
Finally, workarounds are straightforward in many cases: firms can adopt off‑chain agreements that mirror on‑chain economics, use different custody arrangements, or build alternative smart‑contract patterns that allocate intraday interest in other ways. The patent helps, but it is not an automatic barrier to competition.
Signals investors should watch next
If you are tracking this for investment angles in digital‑asset infrastructure or fintech, watch five things closely.
1) Partnerships and integrations. Licensing deals with large custodians, broker‑dealers or transfer agents would be the clearest sign the patent can translate to revenue. A string of enterprise clients or a marquee partnership would suggest commercial traction.
2) Product rollouts tied to custody and settlement. Look for announcements that embed Yield‑in‑Transit into clearing, tokenized‑cash products, or fund accounting tools. Those are the obvious monetization routes: subscription fees, per‑transaction licensing, or a revenue share on earned interest.
3) Regulatory outcomes and accounting guidance. If regulators or auditors clarify how intraday interest should be treated on client statements and balance sheets, adoption will be easier. Any negative guidance or restriction could blunt the commercial case.
4) Litigation and patent challenges. Watch for oppositions, prior‑art claims, or open‑source projects that deliberately design around the patent. Legal fights can be costly and slow and may determine whether the patent is a real asset.
5) Competitive responses. Firms that operate custody or settlement rails could build similar features internally. If large incumbents replicate the idea or roll it into broader platforms, that will limit pricing power for licensing.
Bottom line for investors: the idea behind Yield‑in‑Transit is sensible and useful for institutions that move lots of money. The question is execution—can Tassat convert a granted patent into licensed technology and customer wins before competitors build around it? For now the news is cautiously positive: it points to a practical product that could improve margins in tokenized settlement, but it is not yet a guarantee of durable, monopoly‑style earnings. Keep an eye on real clients, regulatory signals and any legal challenges; those will decide whether the patent translates into lasting value.
Photo: RDNE Stock project / Pexels
Sources