CHAPS infrastructure characteristics
While CHAPS operates on RT2 infrastructure with extended hours, it continues to support a single-instruction, sequential processing model without native atomicity or orchestration.


Today, corporate treasurers routinely manage liquidity across multiple domestic banks, using a sequence of independent CHAPS or Faster Payments transfers to rebalance funds, fund subsidiaries, and execute sweeps. These sequential movements introduce operational risk, reconciliation complexity, intraday liquidity inefficiencies, and the potential for failed or partial execution.
The proposed use case tests how RT2 Synchronisation can enable atomic, synchronised multi-bank cash movements for treasury operations initiated programmatically by Quant Flow Corporate. This would allow corporates to rebalance liquidity across banks with prepare, lock and commit guarantees, eliminating the risks inherent in sequential transfers.
Sequential settlement risk: Transfers between banks must be executed one at a time. If a later leg fails, treasurers may have to manually unwind previous movements.
Intraday liquidity inefficiency: Corporates hold buffer balances to protect against timing mismatches or failures in sequential CHAPS instructions.
Operational cost and complexity: Each transfer must be instructed, monitored, confirmed, reconciled, and sometimes reversed.
Governance issues: Approvals apply to individual instructions rather than the overall treasury action.
Lack of automation: Traditional rails do not support atomic multi-leg operations, limiting programmability and automation.
The solution provides treasurers with a safe, automated, real-time mechanism to rebalance liquidity across all their banks simultaneously, without operational risk, reconciliation errors, or intraday liquidity exposure.

A corporate user (or an AI agent via PayScript) can define liquidity rules such as maintaining a minimum balance of £5m at Bank A, automatically sweeping surplus funds from Bank B to Bank C, and rebalancing liquidity across multiple banks to align with forecasted payment obligations.
QFC packages all required movements into a single synchronisation bundle, for example debiting £4m from Bank A and crediting £2m each to Bank B and Bank C.
Each participating bank locks or reserves the required funds and confirms its readiness to settle.
RT2 executes a synchronised, or near-synchronised, commit step that ensures all legs settle together and prevents the process from reaching the commit stage if any individual leg cannot be transferred.
QFC updates treasury dashboards, reconciles movements, and logs audit trails.
While CHAPS operates on RT2 infrastructure with extended hours, it continues to support a single-instruction, sequential processing model without native atomicity or orchestration.
This leads to partial execution, increased overdraft risk, failed legs, liquidity fragmentation, reconciliation difficulties, a greater need for manual intervention, and higher treasury operational load.
RT2 Synchronisation uniquely enables atomicity across multiple banks, prepare-commit-rollback semantics, automated multi-bank orchestration, single governance and approval of entire bundles, and clean reconciliation and auditability.
These capabilities do not exist in current high value rails.
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities
Write a brief description of the product's capabilities