ESBD_482662_1771534130868_RFI 908-26-031326MS CPA Official Response to Questions.pdf

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 1 of 8

Request for Information (RFI)

908-26-031326MS

Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency

Official Responses to Questions from Potential Respondents

February 16, 2026

Respondents are reminded, as referenced within RFI Part F (No Award Results from this RFI), this RFI is issued solely for the purpose of obtaining information that may assist CPA in evaluating transactional payment systems using assest-backed currency (Services) for potential future procurement. CPA has not made any determinations regarding how the project should be implemented. Responses to questions herein are intended to assist RFI Respondents in providing input regarding the legal, regulatory, and technical standards and evaluation or other requirements that CPA should consider when developing any future solicitation.

1. While reading the RFI document, I saw that LSTA currently provides precious metals storage, safekeeping, custody, and accounting to individual investors and other owners of bullion. Are they also an incumbent that provides the payment system services that the state currently seeks? Or is the payment system aspect an entirely new requirement?

CPA RESPONSE: No. Lone Star Tangible Assets, LP (“LSTA”) does not currently provide payment system services as the payment system is a new requirement.

2. I know that this project is only in the RFI stage at the moment, but I was curious if the state had an estimated contract value for a potential contract that would be awarded if this project did move past the RFI stage?

CPA RESPONSE: No. As referenced within RFI Part B (Introduction), the Legislature has not provided an appropriation to implement this program. Consequently, CPA does not have an estimated contract value that could be awarded from any potential future solicitation for these services. Instead, if a contract is awarded, the selected contractor will be expected to bear the costs of implementing the project and will be compensated from the fees collected.

3. Would CPA consider it acceptable for a private system operator to satisfy a portion of the required working capital using highly liquid, short-duration, tokenized U.S. Treasury funds, provided such instruments are used solely to bridge settlement timing differences and are not user-facing or treated as a medium of exchange?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA has not determined the working capital requirements at this time. CPA is seeking input on the amount of working capital that may be needed to implement this project and recommendations regarding working capital requirements, including liquidity requirements, to be included in any potential solicitation for the Services.

4. Does CPA envision any restrictions on the form of working capital used by a private partner (e.g., cash, bank deposits, money market funds, tokenized U.S. Treasury funds), assuming all forms meet liquidity, auditability, and regulatory requirements?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA has not determined the working capital requirements at this time. CPA is seeking input on the amount of working capital that may be needed to implement this project and recommendations regarding working capital requirements, including any restrictions on the form of working capital, to be included in any potential solicitation resulting from this RFI.

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 2 of 8

5. For real-time “proof of reserves,” would CPA be open to reserve components held outside the bullion depository (e.g., operator working capital) using cryptographically verifiable, third-party-audited instruments, such as tokenized U.S. Treasury funds, so long as bullion backing remains fully segregated and primary?

CPA RESPONSE: No. CPA’s objective is to maintain a pure physical metal reserve designed around a strict 1:1 physical bullion backing model, with all reserves fully allocated and held within the Depository. At this time, CPA does not contemplate inclusion of non-bullion assets as components of proof of reserves.

6. In scenarios where bullion market liquidity is temporarily constrained (e.g., after hours or during market stress), would CPA consider it appropriate for a private operator to rely on pre-funded liquidity reserves in tokenized U.S. Treasury funds to ensure uninterrupted transaction authorization?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA has not yet considered scenarios where bullion market liquidity may be temporarily constrained and encourages interested Respondents to make recommendations regarding such requirements.

7. Please describe the integration, if any, with current systems used for tracking bullion inventory held in the

Depository, including any system integration required with LSTA.

CPA RESPONSE: Currently, LSTA provides a restful API that can be used to get account holdings, related account transactions that have been completed, and initiate transactions for segregated storage accounts.

While CPA anticipates that segregated storage accounts will not be incorporated into any payment transaction system, CPA is seeking input on how recommended models should integrate with the existing system for tracking bullion inventory in the Depository.

8. Please illustrate an example of when peer-to-peer transactions might be carried out.

CPA RESPONSE: CPA anticipates that some consumers may wish to make payments or transfer funds to other individuals on a peer-to-peer (P2P) basis in a manner similar to other payment transaction systems, such as Paypal, Venmo, etc.

9. Does the CPA require point-of-sale (POS) devices for in-person transactions? If so, does the CPA have an estimate of how many POS devices would be required?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA understands this question to ask whether additional, separate point-of-sale (POS) devices will be required for in-person transactions. No. CPA anticipates that any future solicitation would allow the use existing point-of-sale (POS) devices and infrastructure.

10. Does the CPA anticipate that the selected vendor would be responsible for operating any consumer-facing digital wallets or card programs directly, or will those functions remain with the Depository and/or LSTA with the partner primarily providing payment processing and integrations?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA anticipates that in the event of a solicitation, the selected vendor will be responsible for operating any consumer-facing digital wallets or card programs, and would not be limited to primarily providing payment processing and integrations.

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 3 of 8

11. Will the CPA consider responses that focus on a specific layer of the ecosystem (for example, payment processing, card programs, or user interfaces) while relying on separate partners for bullion custody, tokenization, or price feeds, or is CPA primarily interested in end-to-end solutions from a single provider?

CPA RESPONSE: To the extent a Respondent has relevant information that will assist CPA in developing any future solicitation, Responses may include information and suggestions regarding specific layers of the payment transaction ecosystem.

12. Does the CPA have any initial planning assumptions related to anticipated transaction volumes, average ticket size, and adoption rates among the various depositor groups that respondents may use when describing scalability, fees, and technical approaches?

CPA RESPONSE: No.

13. Is the CPA seeking online/mobile capabilities in addition to in-person transactions?

CPA RESPONSE: Yes.

14. How does CPA envision ownership and control of any digital representations of bullion (including ledgers, registries, or token schemas) created as part of the transactional payment system—specifically, whether such representations would be owned by the State, jointly owned, or retained by private partners?

CPA RESPONSE: As outlined in CPA’s response to Question #4, CPA is seeking input and recommendations from interested parties as to how a public-private partnership (P3) should be structured to achieve the goal of creating a payment transaction system using precious metals held in the Depository. CPA believes that recommendations regarding ownership and control should ensure that interests and incentives between the State and any private partners are best aligned to achieve the stated goal.

15. Does CPA anticipate asserting ownership, license rights, or perpetual usage rights over intellectual property, data models, or system designs developed by private partners during implementation of the payment system?

CPA RESPONSE: See response to Question #14.

16. Would CPA consider solutions that allow private partners to deploy substantially similar asset-backed transactional systems in other jurisdictions, provided Texas-specific requirements are met?

CPA RESPONSE: Yes.

17. Does CPA view systems based on serialized, individually identifiable bullion holdings differently from pooled-ounce or account-balance models when evaluating proof-of-reserves, redemption integrity, and auditability?

CPA RESPONSE: Yes. CPA understands that systems based on serialized, individually identifiable bullion holdings may provide additional challenges at a transactional level that affect its utility for point-of-sale or fractional transactions. However, CPA encourages Responses to include any input and recommendations that outline how such challenges may be surmounted.

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 4 of 8

18. How does CPA envision handling partial liquidation or fractional transactional use of individually serialized bullion while maintaining clear title, auditability, and redemption rights?

CPA RESPONSE: As outlined in CPA’s response to Question #17, CPA understands that systems based on serialized, individually identifiable bullion holdings may provide additional challenges at a transactional level that affect its utility for point-of-sale (POS) or fractional transactions. These challenges include issues identified by this Question #18. CPA is seeking input and recommendations from interested parties regarding how the redemption process should work, including how depositors may redeem their account balances for bullion, U.S. dollars, or a combination of physical bullion and U.S. dollars. See additionally CPA Response to Question #14.

19. Does CPA agree that systems structured as digital transfer of title to physical property held in custody, rather than issuance of a new digital currency, present a lower constitutional risk under Article I, Section 10?

CPA RESPONSE: This question seeks a legal opinion from CPA that is outside the scope of this RFI. As outlined in RFI Section D (Scope), CPA is seeking input from interested parties that addresses how models may be structured to be fully compliant with Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution to assist CPA in potentially issuing a future solicitation for the Services.

20. If a token-based model is considered, does CPA envision the State itself minting or issuing tokens, or would

CPA prefer models where any digital instruments are created and managed entirely by private entities with the State acting solely as custodian and regulator?

CPA RESPONSE: To the extent and interested party recommends a token-based model, CPA encourages the Respondent to identify the advantages and disadvantages of its proposed approach in the context of managing the creation, issuance and burning of token to assist CPA in potentially issuing a future solicitation for the Services.

21. Is CPA more inclined toward a single prime contractor model, or a modular consortium approach where different private partners provide custody logic, payment processing, liquidity, and user interfaces?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA has not made any determination regarding whether CPA will seek a single provider or multiple providers in any potential solicitation.

22. What level of audit access would CPA require into private partners’ internal systems versus depository-facing interfaces, particularly where proprietary reconciliation or ownership algorithms are used?

CPA RESPONSE: This question goes beyond the scope of the RFI. RFI respondents may provide information and suggestions for reasonable audit access and frequency. The level of audit access CPA would require in the event of a future solicitation for the Services would be outlined in a future solicitation, if any.

23. Does CPA anticipate fee structures being set solely by rule, or negotiated contractually with private partners based on operational complexity and capital requirements?

CPA RESPONSE: H.B. 1056 (Act) requires CPA to establish fees by rule. However, if CPA issues a

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 5 of 8 solicitation for the Services and if CPA enters into any contract for the Services, CPA will consult with private partners as part of the rule-making process to ensure that the fees will be sufficient to cover any reasonable costs associated with the initiative.

24. Does CPA view this initiative as a Texas-only implementation, or as a potential model that could be referenced or replicated by other states or jurisdictions?

CPA RESPONSE: The Act mandates that CPA create a payment transaction system based on precious metals held in the Depository but does not limit the utility of the system to only Texas-based transactions.

CPA cannot comment on whether Texas’ initiative could be referenced or replicated by other states or jurisdictions.

25. What does “real-time proof of reserves” mean to you? We would normally understand proof of reserves (of physical metal) as being audits on the metal in the vault which are manual by nature and take time and therefore not possible to be real-time. However, we wonder if you mean having real-time visibility of the ledger.

CPA RESPONSE: “Real-time proof of reserves” refers to a continuous, automated, and publicly verifiable system that would allow proof that sufficient assets are held to back user liabilities at all times. This automated process would be coupled with manual periodic audits of physical metal to ensure the accuracy of the automated system.

26. After this RFI, what’s the expected next step: workshops, demos, pilot solicitation, RFP?

CPA RESPONSE: As referenced within RFI Part D (Scope), CPA may, in its sole discretion, request presentations or demonstrations from vendors based on their RFI response.

27. We understand that security measures remain confidential to improve effectiveness but please can you tell us about the depository's process + standards (frameworks, audits, governance)..

CPA RESPONSE: This question is overbroad and unclear. As such, CPA cannot provide a meaningful response at this time.

28. Does the Depository have any certification?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA does not have sufficient information regarding the context of this question. At this time, the Depository does not have any existing certifications.

29. With reference to Constitutional / legal guardrails, are there any AG opinions or internal legal memos we can align to (even high-level)?

CPA RESPONSE: Not at this time.

30. Can we presume this program will need to comply with the federal BSA/AML framework—i.e., FinCEN MSB requirements, OFAC sanctions screening, CIP/CDD expectations under the USA PATRIOT Act, and SAR/CTR obligations—and, on the Texas side, any requirements to money transmission / Money Services Business licensing administered by the Texas Department of Banking under Texas Finance Code Chapter 152 (as

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 6 of 8 applicable), including onboarding, ongoing transaction monitoring, recordkeeping, and any ‘travel rule’ style information-sharing expectations??

CPA RESPONSE: As outlined in CPA’s response to Question #18, CPA is seeking to identify the regulatory challenges (U.S. federal, state, and international laws and restrictions) that Respondents believe may apply to this initiative and recommendations as to such regulations that may not apply to the Depository due to its status as a state agency that nevertheless should be followed as a matter of best practice.

31. What, if any, promotion or marketing will the state do to promote the transactional payment system using gold and silver currency?

CPA RESPONSE: This question goes beyond the scope of the RFI. RFI Respondents may provide information and suggestions regarding marketing and promotion.

32. Since responses become public, is there a mechanism to share sensitive information (e.g. fraud controls, security architecture, sensitive architecture) privately (e.g., invited presentation, secure appendix)?

CPA RESPONSE: No. As referenced within Part H (Ownership of Responses, Copyright, Public Nature of Responses), RFI Responses are considered public information and available for public inspection without redaction. Consequently, Respondents should not submit any information in Responses that is asserted by Respondent to be confidential or proprietary.

33. Who are the internal decision-makers (Comptroller, TBD leadership, Treasury functions), and have you decided on a set of rules or instructions for evaluation?

CPA RESPONSE: No decisions have been made regarding how any future solicitation for the Services may be evaluated.

34. When you say “without a central intermediary,” do you mean without bank/card rails, or without a governed ledger operator?

CPA RESPONSE: “Without a central intermediary” in this context refers to a functionality that would allow users to directly transfer payments without bank/card rails.

35. Is Texas willing to prioritise AML/CTF + consumer protection over maximum decentralisation?

CPA RESPONSE: Yes. CPA is committed to ensuring that any payment transaction system resulting from any future solicitation for the Services will fully comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements.

36. How will the Comptroller define a successful outcome of this RFI process? Specifically, should a response assume that the RFI is intended to (a) identify one or more implementable transactional payment system models suitable for near-term procurement, or (b) gather general information regarding potential legal, technical, and regulatory considerations without an expectation that an implementation pathway will necessarily result?

CPA RESPONSE: The purpose of the RFI is to gather general information regarding potential legal, technical, and regulatory considerations regarding the Services as well as identifying one or more suitable

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 7 of 8 transaction payment system models to implement the Act. As outlined within RFI Part F (No Award Results from this RFI), CPA is under no obligation to issue a solicitation. While CPA is under no obligation to issue a solicitation, CPA anticipates developing a solicitation for the Services for release later this year.

37. With respect to Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, does the Comptroller have any preliminary interpretive views or guardrails that respondents should assume when proposing compliant models?

CPA RESPONSE: No.

38. Does the Comptroller anticipate considering any other provisions of the Texas or U.S. Constitutions in evaluating proposed models that respondents should address when proposing compliant models?

CPA RESPONSE: No. However, Respondents are encouraged to identify any other challenges or concerns not specifically mentioned by CPA in the RFI.

39. In evaluating proposed models, does the Comptroller anticipate that some level of unresolved legal, regulatory, or operational risk may be acceptable in order to give effect to the Act, or should respondents assume that only models presenting minimal or no material legal uncertainty will be considered viable?

CPA RESPONSE: Given the nature of the initiative, CPA anticipates that there will be some level of unresolved legal, regulatory, or operational risks. Responses should make an effort to identify and address information to be included in any future solicitation for the Services regarding mitigating any unresolved legal or regulatory uncertainties or risks.

40. Given the absence of an appropriation, should respondents assume that the Comptroller views private, fee-supported, or phased implementation models as acceptable mechanisms for initial deployment, or should the lack of appropriated funds be treated as a limiting factor on whether implementation can proceed at all?

CPA RESPONSE: To guide RFI Respondents in providing useful information in their Responses, given the absence of an appropriation, Respondents can assume a fee-supported or phased implementation model as an acceptable mechanism for initial deployment.

41. Would the Comptroller consider a commercially proven, non-tokenized system to give effect to the Act, and if so, what will the Comptroller consider in evaluating those existing systems?

CPA RESPONSE: Yes. As referenced within RFI Part D (Scope), CPA is interested in input regarding how existing platforms can be used or adapted to give effect to the Act.

42. The RFI references tokenization extensively. How does the Comptroller define tokenization and to what extent do you consider Tokenizaton necessary to implement the Act?

CPA RESPONSE: CPA does not consider tokenization necessary to implement the Act. As referenced within RFI Part D (Scope), CPA is interested in input regarding how existing platforms or alternative models can be used or adapted to give effect to the Act.

RFI 908-26-031326MS Transactional Payment Systems Using Asset-Backed Currency Page 8 of 8

43. Should respondents assume that proposed models must be structured to avoid any material risk of legal challenge, or does the Comptroller anticipate that some degree of judicial or regulatory uncertainty may be inherent in implementing a new transactional payment system under the Act?

CPA RESPONSE: See response to Question #39.

44. Does the Comptroller anticipate evaluating RFI responses with the goal of converging toward one or more preferred implementation models, or should respondents assume that materially divergent approaches may be deemed non-comparable and therefore unsuitable for advancement beyond the RFI stage?

CPA RESPONSE: See response to Question #33.

45. What are current pain points and strategic problems that the Texas CPA is aiming to address through this initiative?

CPA RESPONSE: None. This RFI is being issued as part of the implementation process for the Act which provides that the Comptroller may establish or authorize one or more electronic systems that enable a depositor or vendor to make and receive payments using a currency backed by gold and silver bullion held in the Depository.

46. Who are the primary depositors of bullion today (e.g., Individuals, institutions, partners) and how is this mix expected to evolve?

CPA RESPONSE: Currently, the primary depositors of bullion at the Depository are individuals and some institutions. CPA cannot speculate how this mix is expected to evolve with the implementation of the Act.

47. What are the high-level goals for this effort, and how does the Texas CPA define success? (examples: enabling fractional ownership or trading, expanding deposits, improving liquidity, modernizing infrastructure, reducing operational friction)

CPA RESPONSE: This RFI is being issued as part of the implementation process for the Act which provides that the Comptroller may establish or authorize one or more electronic systems that enable a depositor or vendor to make and receive payments using a currency backed by gold and silver bullion held in the Depository.

48. What is driving the consideration of P2P or point of sale (POS) transactions as potential primary use cases? Are there specific needs, merchant use cases, or constituent demands informing this interest?

CPA RESPONSE: The primary consideration considered by CPA is the statutory language of the Act which contemplates point-of-sale (POS) transactions to enable depositors to make and receive payments using gold and silver bullion held in the Depository. However, CPA believes that providing functionality for P2P transactions will increase utility of a payment transaction system and increase adoption.