The dual-token model

cyberCERT and cyberSCRIP: one security in register form and trading form

The protocol's defining architectural innovation is a dual-token model that resolves the tension between legal fidelity and DeFi composability.

The two tokens

cyberCERT (ERC-721) — the register

Each cyberCERT is a single entry on the cyberCORP's onchain register of holders — minted by the LedgerEntryToken contract (formerly CyberCertPrinter) — encoding everything that the relevant governing law requires: holder name, unit count, class / series, restriction legends, endorsement history, authorized signatures, acquisition price, and the governing agreement URI.

Crucially, NFT transfer alone does not change registered ownership. The register tracks a legal owner of record distinct from the ERC-721 possessor, and only the holder of record (or the IssuanceManager acting as registrar on the owner's signature) can endorse a certificate over — possession alone never carries endorsement authority. This maintains the distinction between token possession and registered ownership that corporate, LLC, partnership, and fund law require.

cyberSCRIP (ERC-20) — the trading form

cyberSCRIPs are fungible tokens generated from cyberCERTs via scripifyCert() and convertible back via convertScripToCert(). They are the DeFi composable layer: usable in AMMs (including LiquiLeX pools), lending protocols, vesting contracts, and as collateral.

The critical claim: cyberSCRIPs are not wrappers or derivatives. They are securities in scrip form. Under DGCL §155 (in the Delaware corp case) or the analogous contractual or statutory authority under the entity's governing law, scrip is itself an authorised form of the security. Every circulating cyberSCRIP traces, through the protocol's own logic, to a specific cyberCERT on the authoritative register.

The plain-English version

A cyberCERT is your interest in the entity as it lives in the official records (a share of stock, an LLC membership interest, an LP unit, a fund interest).
A cyberSCRIP is what you can trade or post as collateral when you do not need to be registered as a holder of record at that moment.
Both are the same security in different forms, with bidirectional conversion always available.

Within the scrip lifecycle, the register only changes at the two conversion edges — that is where its compliance runs. (Primary issuance, secondary settlements, endorsements, and voids change the register through their own gated flows.)

Why this works

Composability without losing the register

A cyberSCRIP can sit in a Uniswap v4 pool and trade in size all day. The register does not move. When a long-term holder wants to be the holder of record, they de-scripify — and at that moment, and only at that moment, the full issuer-approval / accreditation gate runs.

Compliance at the boundary

This is what lets a LiquiLeX pool be either whitelisted (compliance on every swap) or open (compliance at de-scripification, with optional light-touch zkPassport screening at swap). The boundary is the only place that matters legally, because that is where the register changes.

Partial scripification

A holder of 1,000,000 shares can scripify 250,000 to trade and keep 750,000 on the cert. The cert remains active with the reduced unit count. An ERC-4626-style pool inside the IssuanceManager tracks each certificate's scripified units as vault positions, so that de-scripification withdraws proportionally against the pool.

What it isn't

Not a wrapped-token model. The scrip is the security; the wrap-and-unwrap framing is wrong.
Not a derivative model. There is no contract for difference, no shadow-asset, no offchain leg.
Not a synthetic. A cyberSCRIP is not a claim on a cyberCERT; it is the same security in a different form.