Sixteen answers, four of them uncomfortable

A plain ERC-20. It represents a proportional claim on one Orbit’s pooled liquidity position and on the yield accrued inside it. Its price is computed — the position marked at the pool, plus harvested-but-unreinvested yield, divided by supply — so it is not quoted by anyone and cannot be posted incorrectly.

Because harvest raises the price rather than minting units. Reinvesting fees into the position increases what each share is worth; a chart of NAV is therefore a chart of the position and not of the token’s popularity. It also means there is no rebase to break integrations.

The idle buffer covers small and ordinary flow. Past that, redemption unwinds a proportional slice of the position at the pool’s live price, and the holder taking that path pays its impact. We have not specified a queue, a gate or a pro-rata rule for the case where the buffer is exhausted and the position cannot be unwound at size. It is listed on the security page under known limits, and it is not solved.

Yes. Locking removes the right to redeem, not the right to transfer. The boost travels with the token, which creates a secondary market in remaining lock time that we have not designed and should.

The interval between wanting a trade and settling it. Today that interval is a public broadcast of your size and direction; under Transit it is a signed intent that only the solver set sees, filled inside a batch. Settlement itself is a public transaction on a public chain and is not private, and anyone can read it afterwards.

No. It is moved. The extractable value that searchers competed for in the open now sits with whoever constructs the batch and whoever wins the fill. That is better when the solver set is large, bonded and competing, and worse than the mempool when it is small or colluding, because collusion in private is invisible. The set does not exist yet.

Unspecified. Whoever it is holds exactly the informational advantage the mempool used to hold, and we have not written the rule that constrains them. Naming this as unsolved is more useful than a diagram that hides it in a box.

It is a quote, not a commitment. Batched settlement means the price you are shown is computed against a book that the rest of the batch then changes. Your limit is enforced at settlement, so you cannot be filled worse than you signed for — you can be not filled at all.

Because the difficulty is not on-chain. A tokenised share references a market that is open six and a half hours a day, five days a week, and closed for holidays — roughly 19% of the week. The rest of the time there is a price on-chain and no price to check it against.

Undecided, and it needs deciding before anything ships. A trading halt in the reference market removes the only honest source of price while the on-chain pool keeps quoting one. Every option — halt the pool, widen the band, let it float — has a failure mode and we have not chosen.

A share has corporate actions and a token does not. Someone has to translate them, and that someone is a trusted party. We would rather name the trust than route around it in a diagram.

That is the open question. Most tokenised equities carry transfer restrictions at the token level, which is in direct tension with both a fungible bearer receipt and an identity-shielding router. The reference design does not acknowledge the tension. We do not have a resolution.

Divergence loss on the pooled position, by a wide margin. A concentrated range that is actively rebalanced sells the falling asset and buys the rising one at every shift, and the loss is realised rather than paper. The Parallax breakdown puts it on the page beside the fees rather than under them.

On the Almanac, with the ones that are not set marked unset. Two of the four flows carry no number yet. A third — the solver’s spread on a fill — is not ours to set at all, and it is the largest and least visible cost a trader pays. Only the trading fee has a value, and that one is set by the pool tier rather than by us.

Buffer ratio, fee rates, emission tail rate, lock maximum, boost maximum and the emission cap multiple, each inside a hard bound written into the contract. What governance cannot do is move deposits, disable redemption, or set a parameter outside its published range.

No. No contract is deployed on any network, no audit exists, and every market figure on this site is illustrative and labelled. The planetary positions, the palette derivation and the accuracy figure are the only real measurements here, and they are about the page rather than about a protocol.