Workflow mapping
For teams validating one provider-neutral wallet operations workflow.
- Provider and workflow map
- WalletKit fit review
- Control boundary notes
- Implementation sequence
Alloy packaging is being validated with design partners. The intended model is modular and right-sized: begin with WalletKit or a workflow map, then attach policy, risk, reconciliation, and compliance controls when they create operating proof.
For teams validating one provider-neutral wallet operations workflow.
For teams with a live provider and a concrete second-provider, audit, or reconciliation trigger.
For regulated teams adding policy, risk, reconciliation, compliance, or authority controls.
For now, Alloy conversations should answer which workflow is urgent, which provider boundary is real, and which module turns that pain into reviewable evidence.
During design-partner validation, Alloy is focused on workflow fit rather than a self-serve free tier.
No. Alloy is non-custodial and sits above customer-approved wallet and custody infrastructure.
Yes. The intended adoption path starts with WalletKit or one urgent workflow, then adds modules as the operating model matures.
Pricing conversations should make the operating surface precise enough for both a design partner and an investor diligence reader.
Second provider, migration, close pain, compliance audit, bank procurement, or AI-agent authority.
Which custody providers, customer systems, roles, approvals, and downstream evidence stores stay in scope.
WalletKit first when provider state is the wedge; PolicyKit, RiskGuard, ReconFlow, ShieldOS, VaultCore, TreasuryAI, or TokenForge attach when proof requires them.
One measurable operating outcome: fewer manual close exceptions, clearer approval evidence, cleaner provider migration path, or faster workflow review.