Skip to content

ADR 0004: Asset-Provider Layer and Purchase-Mode Parity

  • Status: Accepted
  • Date: 2026-09-17
  • Deciders: Huashan Wang
  • Related: ADR 0003 (rider modality matrix), ADR 0001 (Phase 4 BU catalog)

Context

ADR 0003 defined the rider modality matrix (vehicle tenure × battery tenure). The owner clarified its systemic consequence and one simplification:

  1. Asset-provider necessity: whenever the rider rents an asset, someone must own it and rent it out — a service provider (e.g., the traditional PAYG operator) that must derive income from rental services and carry the associated asset risks. A "rent" dimension in any modality therefore implies a counterpart BUFM.
  2. Purchase-mode parity: outright cash purchase and financed purchase are the same modality ("own"). They differ only in total cost of purchase (financed total may exceed cash price). Personal financing dynamics are out of scope — a separate topic, well covered elsewhere.

Decision

  1. Counterparty rule: every rent tenure in a modality matrix must resolve to an explicit asset-owner BUFM that (a) owns the asset, (b) earns rental/service income, and (c) carries the asset's risks (utilization, degradation, damage, resale). No rented asset is modeled without its provider.
  2. Rent vehicle → Vehicle Service Provider (PAYG / fleet operator)
  3. Rent battery → Battery Asset Owner (BAAS operator; the BCS lineage)
  4. Purchase parity rule: cash and financed purchase are one tenure ("own"), differing only in the total-cost-of-purchase input parameter. Financing spreads, rates, and personal credit dynamics are excluded from BUFM scope.
  5. Catalog consequence (feeds Phase 4): the base case OVRB couples the rider to the Battery Asset Owner and, through the swap transaction, the Swap Network — matching the existing BCS/SNS lineage and Maxwell's v12 engine structure.
  6. Terminology updated accordingly (counterparty rule, purchase parity, PAYG operator, asset provider).

Consequences

  • Positive: the modality matrix stays 2×2 while still expressing who owns and who risks; financing complexity excluded by explicit scope decision, not oversight; provider BUFMs inherit clear income+risk definitions.
  • Neutral: financed-purchase premium is a parameter, not a structure.
  • Risk: none material; revisit only if a market requires financing dynamics as a modeled driver.

Amendment 1 — Tenure Defined by Balance-Sheet Ownership (2026-09-17)

The owner clarified the boundary between instalment purchase and rent-to-own contracts, which superficially resemble each other. The distinction is contractual (balance-sheet) ownership, not payment schedule:

  • Tenure follows the balance sheet. "Own" = the asset sits on the party's balance sheet, even if encumbered — a mortgage/lien on a deed grants the financier a claim, not ownership; until settlement, ownership remains clearly indicated on the respective parties' balance sheets.
  • Instalment purchase → "own" tenure for the buyer from the outset (asset encumbered by financier's lien).
  • Rent-to-own / hire-purchase → "rent" tenure during the rental phase (asset on provider's balance sheet), flipping to "own" only upon settlement. The contract's option-to-purchase does not change pre-settlement tenure.
  • Modeling consequence: tenure-dependent economics (SOH risk, warranty, depreciation, residual value) attach to the balance-sheet owner at each point in time.