Trade Finance in Oil and Gas: Banks' Retreat and Compliance

Trade Finance in Oil and Gas: Banks' Retreat and Compliance

avatar
by Robert Shiler

Banks are exiting oil and gas trade finance—not because of a lack of demand, but because compliance economics have turned against them. This analysis breaks down the sanctions, AML, and settlement risks that make every link in the transaction chain a potential liability, and why tokenization does not change the rules of the game.

Read more >
Letters of Credit in New and Risky Trade Corridors: Demand, Constraints, and the Role of the Confirming Bank

Letters of Credit in New and Risky Trade Corridors: Demand, Constraints, and the Role of the Confirming Bank

avatar
by Serge Abisher

Letters of credit remain a key instrument for protecting exporters in new and risky trade corridors — but in 2026, confirmation is becoming the bottleneck. We analyze how limits, correspondent network contraction, compliance costs, and sanctions clauses affect the availability and cost of confirmed LCs, and what alternatives exist when no bank is willing to confirm.

Read more >
Regulatory progress 2025–2026: delineation of RWA tokens and cryptocurrencies in the US, Europe, and Singapore

Regulatory Progress 2025–2026: Distinguishing RWA Tokens from Cryptocurrencies in the US, Europe, and Singapore

avatar
by Robert Shiler

The era of legal uncertainty in digital assets is over. In 2025–2026, the US, Europe, and Singapore drew a clear regulatory line between unbacked cryptocurrencies and RWA tokens. How does the Howey Test give way to the Reves test for debt tokens? Why are tokenized invoices removed from MiCA and brought under MiFID II? What five categories did the SEC and CFTC establish in March 2026? And why is Singapore's Project Guardian becoming the reference infrastructure for institutional tokenization? A comparative legal analysis of three jurisdictions — with a focus on the legal structuring of trade finance RWA.

Read more >

You will be interested

Core Essentials about Edenex

A marketplace and system of record that connects capital with documented export shipments. Edenex operates the platform and keeps the record; it holds no client funds and does not itself provide custody, payment, exchange or investment services. Regulated activities are performed by licensed firms under their own permissions.

A subordinated position in the financing of one identified export shipment – goods already sold to a named overseas importer, not a blind pool. You do not own the goods; you hold a position in that deal and are repaid from its proceeds.

Cover, collateral and the payout order are set on the deal before capital moves. Where a policy attaches, the claim runs first; recovery and collection follow; whatever is received is then paid out in the agreed order, senior before junior. Junior is priced for that position. Capital is at risk and no outcome is guaranteed.

Outside the operator, by design. The platform is built so that client funds sit with licensed custodians, escrow agents and authorised payment firms in segregated accounts under their own permissions, while Edenex issues instructions and keeps the record. No part of the design brings client money to Edenex. Some of these arrangements are still being put in place.

No. Edenex does not execute payments. Cross-border and invoice settlement is designed to run through licensed payment providers on their own permissions, inside the deal timeline.

Yes. Exporters go through KYB and document checks; financing is arranged per deal against confirmed orders and invoices. Acceptance is not automatic.

Each role onboards separately: KYB, a permissions check and a role agreement. Lenders fund the senior tranche, insurers underwrite cover where a policy attaches, and payment, logistics and customs partners act inside the deal timeline under their own licences. See the Partners page for models and integration steps, or write to [email protected].