Annex - Hypothetical ROI Model for National Participation
Intent
This annex provides an illustrative framework for thinking about fiscal impact and return on investment (ROI) for a nation state participating in GRID/DIA.
It is intentionally hypothetical. The point is to give stakeholders a shared mental model for “membership cost vs. verification friction avoided,” not to claim a precise forecast.
A1. Purpose of the model
The model borrows from a “cost‑recovery” logic similar to long‑running shared trust utilities (often referenced via the ICAO PKD precedent), where the operator aims for budget neutrality and participants aim for lower per‑transaction verification cost.
A2. The “trust tax” vs. participation fee
The model assumes the current “trust tax”—the cumulative cost of manual identity verification, document legalization (apostilles), and trade delays—is a meaningful drag on productivity and competitiveness.
Hypothetical cost structure
- Annual participation fee: ~USD 20,000 (illustrative, assuming a mature network of 75+ participants)
- Registration fee (one‑time): ~USD 15,000 (illustrative)
- Internal integration cost: variable
- low for “directory listing only”
- medium for “credential issuance + status checking”
A3. Potential ROI pillars (illustrative)
| Pillar | Mechanism of value | Potential impact (illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Export velocity | Firms bypass repeated manual KYB checks at foreign borders/banks by presenting verifiable evidence. | 15–20% reduction in onboarding time for exporters |
| Administrative savings | Reduced need for paper‑based “certificates of good standing” and manual verification workflows. | Meaningful reduction in registry processing overhead |
| SME market access | Lower verification barriers let smaller firms compete in cross‑border tenders and platforms. | Increased volume of SME transactions |
| Fraud mitigation | Automated validation reduces forged documentation and identity hijacking. | Avoided litigation and brand damage |
A4. Network effects (illustrative)
Shared trust utilities compound value as participation grows.
A simple mental model is: more participants means fewer bespoke bilateral integrations and fewer repeated verification loops per counterparty. Even modest participation fees can become trivial when amortized across a country’s major trade partners.
A5. Comparative benchmarking (ICAO PKD as precedent)
Common benchmark claims used in stakeholder conversations:
- long‑run operational sustainability without requiring regular budget funding
- cost per participant stabilizing or decreasing as adoption grows, even as technical capability improves
This is not proof that GRID/DIA will follow the same curve, but it is a useful reference point for how shared trust infrastructure can be governed and funded.
A6. Summary of the hypothetical economic case
Under this framing, the participation fee is better understood as:
- a contribution to shared trust infrastructure (a global public good), and
- a lever to reduce recurring verification friction that is otherwise paid repeatedly by government and industry.
Illustrative conclusion: for a nation with an export economy of USD 1B, a USD 20k annual fee is 0.002% overhead. If participation reduces friction by even 0.1%, ROI is materially positive relative to the fee.