Artiquity: Layered Architecture

Distinguishing the physics of access from the economics of routing.

The Payment Layer (The Tollbooth)

This layer governs micro-transactions, royalty splits, and lineage tracking. It is designed for extreme speed and near-zero friction, built to handle millions of generative events (typically living on a Layer 2 rollup like Base or an AppChain).

Data Types Handled

  • Derivative Lineage Trees: Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) mapping parent capsules to child generations.
  • Fractional Balances: State maps holding micro-penny balances in stablecoins (e.g., USDC) or native tokens.
  • Royalty Split Arrays: Math execution rules (e.g., `[0.02 to Wallet A, 0.01 to Wallet B]`).
  • Event Hashes: Lightweight receipts of a generation event from the Remix Engine.
User Triggers Remix Engine Generation
Calculate Split Math via Lineage Graph
Execute L2 Micro-Transaction State Update

The Execution Bridge

The two layers connect at the moment of execution. When a user requests a remix, the system checks the Consent Layer (L1) to verify the cryptographic permissions are valid. If approved, the Remix Engine generates the work, and simultaneously pings the Payment Layer (L2) to execute the fractional royalty routing. Consent unlocks the physics; Payment executes the economics.

🔥 The Structural Challenge

If the Consent Layer lives on a slow, highly secure L1, and the Payment Layer lives on a fast, cheap L2, how does your system handle state desynchronization?

Example: If an artist burns their Capsule and revokes consent on the L1, it might take 12 seconds for the block to finalize. In those 12 seconds, the high-speed Remix Engine on the L2 could process 10,000 generation requests using that artist's style. Does the L2 physically stop, or does Artiquity prioritize the speed of the Remix Engine over the absolute real-time enforcement of the Consent Layer?