Who is responsible for what
Four groups, four scopes. The product only works if each one's boundary is visible in the record — including MPC's own.
- Status
- Design & build stage
- Whitepaper basis
- §5.5 Asset Issuance Structure — Who Does What · §12.2 Business Model Components · §7.3.2 Verification and Oracle
- Verified on-chain today
- None — nothing here is deployed yet
- Still at design stage
- ERSP registration workflow · Verification party register
MPC
Operates technology, data, registry, smart-contract and lifecycle infrastructure: version linkage, review procedure, readiness rules, the public Explorer and audit record, chain integrity proofs, and the technical separation of the two governance spaces. MPC is not the issuer, investment adviser, custodian or regulated service provider for any individual project.
Project parties
Responsible for the project's own material, rights, operations and issuance. Sponsor and operator supply operational material, relationships, consents and access rights; the host-country SPV or rights-holding entity carries the mining licence, local contracts and off-chain legal enforcement; the project-specific issuer carries the legal issuance decision, disclosure, offering terms and the appointment of external bodies.
External regulated service providers (ERSP)
Separate external entities contracted by the project to perform functions that require authorisation. Registering one in a real role requires evidence of authorisation for that function in that jurisdiction, the project contract, and the conflict-of-interest position.
Verification parties
CP/QP professionals, laboratories, legal reviewers and independent assurance reviewers. Each signs an opinion and its limitation within their own field. A different role from an ERSP, and never a substitute for one.
ERSP function examples
- KYC / AML
- Placement and distribution
- Custody
- Transfer agent and authorised trading venue
- Escrow and payment
One consequence worth stating plainly: a laboratory confirming a certificate does not confirm a legal right, and a legal review does not confirm a geological judgment. The record keeps them as separate attestations because they are separate claims.
Who pays for verification
The project pays. A sponsor or issuer that wants an asset verified engages the verification parties and the ERSPs its jurisdiction requires, and carries their fees — the arrangement a JORC or NI 43-101 technical report already runs on, where the mining company pays the Qualified Person directly. MPC charges the project for onboarding, registry and issuance infrastructure; it does not settle a reviewer's fee on the project's behalf. None of this cost reaches a reader of the public Explorer.
Paying a reviewer does not buy the opinion. Independence is carried by the reviewer's own authorisation, the signed scope and limitation attached to every attestation, and the conflict-of-interest position recorded when an ERSP is registered — not by who settles the invoice. Protocol-side verification nodes and data oracles sit on the other side of the same ledger: they are designed to post a deposit rather than draw a fee, with inaccurate verification subject to slashing.
What is open is the rate, not the payer. Fee, staking and slashing values appear in the open-decision list of the release chapter; who bears the cost does not.
What this does not do
- MPC does not vouch for a reviewer's authority or the accuracy of their opinion.
- A registered ERSP is not treated as evidence that the project itself is compliant.
- No party's role is inferred from context — each is recorded with its own evidence.
- MPC does not fund a project's verification or ERSP costs, and no verification cost is charged to Explorer readers or token holders.
This chapter is a public adaptation of the internal product specification. Where the two differ, the specification and the whitepaper govern.
MPC dApp Guide · design & build stage · synthetic demo data