Jason Cooner is a veteran architect of mission-critical systems. His career spans the development of early internet-based management portals for the Department of Defence, the creation of global banking protocols such as the Interactive Financial Exchange (IFX), and the establishment of foundational models for Machine-to-Machine (M2M) networks, now known as the Internet of Things (IoT).
At Parisii, Cooner is applying this deep infrastructure expertise to build DeFED™, a “Web4” banking platform designed to be quantum-tolerant and compliant with emerging regulations like the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts. Parisii aims to integrate real-world assets (RWAs) into the monetary layer itself, shifting finance from depreciative debt models to appreciative, asset-backed systems.
We recently spoke with Jason Cooner, Chairman, President, and CEO of Parisii, about the evolution of financial infrastructure and why the industry must move beyond the “Web3 vs. TradFi” dichotomy.
Read more about Parisii’s vision for a regenerative, quantum-secure financial ecosystem in the interview below.
You’ve built and deployed mission-critical infrastructure across multiple technology cycles. What patterns repeat when infrastructure shifts at this scale, regardless of the technology involved?
Regardless of the era, four key patterns recur. The first is the struggle for standards. Whether it was the DoD’s UUNET portal, the IFX banking protocol, or modern M2M networks, the primary challenge has always been ensuring disparate systems can talk to one another. We see this today with RWAs; without the standards we are building in DeFED, the ecosystem remains fragmented.
The second pattern is that security cannot be retrofitted. Early internet and banking systems taught us that adding protection later is a liability. We applied this lesson to DeFED by making it quantum-tolerant from the outset rather than waiting for the threat to mature.
The third pattern is regulatory lag. Innovation leads, and governance follows. We saw this in internet governance and IoT spectrum allocation, and we are seeing it now in the GENIUS and CLARITY acts. These frameworks are essential for moving from experimentation to global scale.
The final pattern is that utility drives adoption. Technology for its own sake fails. UUNET succeeded by simplifying logistics, just as IFX did by reducing costs. Parisii will succeed because tokenising RWAs offers clear value in yield and liquidity, making the transition to Web4 banking obvious for users.
GENIUS explicitly prohibits issuer-paid yield on payment stablecoins. Do you see that restriction as a limitation on innovation, or as an acknowledgement that stablecoins were never meant to function as savings or monetary instruments?
The GENIUS Act recognises that stablecoins are designed for settlement, not for savings. This restriction is essential to maintaining a stable peg and avoiding the regulatory burden of being classified as a security.
Instead of being a limitation, this rule mitigates the risks associated with speculative holding. Yield incentives can undermine stability, as seen in previous market failures. By defining stablecoins strictly as digital cash, the Act encourages the market to seek yield elsewhere.
Parisii solves this by using PARYS RWAs as separate deposit tokens to generate yield. This approach ensures we can offer attractive returns through regulated lending without compromising the stability of the payment network.
Much of Web3 attempted to recreate banking without banks, while traditional banks are now experimenting with tokenisation. Why have both approaches struggled to produce a durable, institution-grade model so far?
The struggle stems from a fundamental mismatch between innovation and infrastructure. Web3 sought to build “bankless” finance but often ignored the safety rails. Without regulatory oversight or robust security, the sector was plagued by high gas fees, interoperability issues, and catastrophic failures, including the Terra/Luna collapse.
Conversely, traditional banks have the safety rails but lack agility. Their tokenisation efforts are often stalled by siloed legacy systems and regulatory hurdles. Innovation is stifled by a culture that prioritises risk avoidance, keeping most projects stuck in the pilot phase.
To succeed, a model must address both security and scale simultaneously. Current attempts fail because they rely on retrofitting security against quantum threats or on debt-based economics. Parisii solves this with DeFED by building an AI-first, quantum-tolerant system from the ground up.
By mapping RWAs to transparent lending under Basel III compliance, we bridge the gap between Web3 innovation and institutional stability.
Parisii frames its work not as incremental fintech, but as a shift toward “Web4 banking.” What distinguishes Web4 from Web2 and Web3?
We define Web4 as the evolution of decentralisation towards intelligent, sustainable, and resilient finance. While Web2 focused on centralised scale and Web3 on “bankless” architecture, Web4 combines the best of both worlds through four distinct differentiators:
- AI-First Autonomy: We move beyond static protocols to “Agentic Commerce,” where AI agents manage hyper-personalised services such as lending and payments across protocols.
- Quantum Tolerance: Unlike earlier architectures that require retrofitting, we build quantum-resistant security directly into the kernel.
- Regenerative Assets: We replace debt-based models with appreciative monetary instruments. PARYS Carbon, for example, uses carbon accounting to generate sustainable yields.
- Hybrid Compliance: We secure a regulatory footing under New York law and a Puerto Rico IFE charter. This enables us to offer the innovation of DeFi with the regulatory assurance of traditional banking.
RWAs are often discussed as tokenised versions of existing assets. You describe them instead as monetary instruments. What changes when RWAs are treated as part of the monetary layer rather than simply as investment vehicles?
When RWAs become monetary instruments, they cease to be simple investment vehicles and become the bedrock of a new economy. We are moving beyond the limited goals of liquidity and fractional ownership to establish RWAs as legitimate mediums of exchange and stores of value.
The most significant change is the introduction of intrinsic stability. PARYS Carbon, for example, avoids crypto volatility and the inflationary erosion of fiat by anchoring value to regenerative assets. This turns the currency itself into an appreciating asset.
This approach also drives deep systemic integration. Within DeFED, we use RWAs as deposit tokens to facilitate seamless lending and payments. This transparency and compliance reduce fraud and enable quantum-tolerant security.
Ultimately, this infrastructure facilitates Agentic Commerce. It allows AI agents to transact autonomously within a Web4 banking framework that prioritises long-term, durable value over short-term speculation.
Parisii places carbon at the centre of its RWA architecture as a digitally native asset. Why is carbon uniquely suited to anchor an asset-backed monetary system compared to traditional commodities like gold or oil?
Carbon succeeds where traditional commodities fail by being both digitally native and legally enforceable. Unlike gold, which requires costly physical custody, tokenised carbon exists on-chain, eliminating storage costs and delivery risks.
It also offers a superior economic model. As oil reserves deplete, carbon credits appreciate under global mandates such as the Paris Agreement. This creates a regenerative asset that hedges against inflation and generates ongoing yield. By anchoring DeFED in carbon, we build a monetary system that is stable, scalable, and directly aligned with the future of global finance.
Tokenisation is frequently marketed around liquidity and ownership. In your view, where does the real economic value of tokenisation actually emerge?
Real economic value emerges when tokenisation moves beyond simple ownership to deliver programmability, transparency, and regenerative yield.
First, programmability eliminates intermediaries, enabling Agentic Commerce, in which AI agents manage transactions, significantly lowering costs. Second, transparency builds trust through immutable ledgers that verify compliance and asset backing in real time.
Third, regenerative yields ensure durability. By shifting from debt-based to asset-backed models, we create a system that compounds wealth while funding global sustainability goals. This is a fundamental shift towards Web4, prioritising sustainable growth over the speculative cycles of the past.
Parisii positions lending as a transparent, smart-contract-driven process aligned with regulatory standards like Basel IV. What fundamentally changes when lending becomes programmable rather than discretionary?
Shifting lending from discretionary to programmable transforms finance in profound ways. First, transparency surges. Smart contracts encode terms immutably, providing verifiable audits and reducing asymmetry.
Borrowers see the exact criteria, and lenders track usage in real time. This complies with Basel IV’s disclosure rules and minimises the risk of fraud.
Second, efficiency and accessibility improve. Programmability enables hyper-personalised loans via AI. We can assess risk instantly and without bias, lowering rates. Fractional lending via tokenised assets democratises access, unlike discretionary gatekeeping.
Third, risk management evolves. Automated triggers, such as collateral adjustments, enforce Basel IV’s buffers, helping to prevent defaults proactively. Quantum-tolerant security adds resilience.
Fourth, economic models shift. From depreciating debt to appreciating RWAs, lending becomes regenerative. Overall, programmability fosters trust, scalability, and sustainability, turning lending into a precise engine for Web4 banking.
You propose a governance-driven quantitative-easing model within a decentralised banking system. What lessons from traditional central banking informed that design, and what problems is it trying to avoid?
Parisii’s governance-driven QE in DeFED draws on traditional central banking lessons while addressing their flaws in a decentralised context.
The lesson is that central banks use QE to inject liquidity during crises, thereby stabilising the economy through asset purchases. Hence, we adopt phased interventions: Phase 1 is immediate RWA infusions, Phase 2 is targeted lending, and Phase 3 involves governance votes for long-term adjustments.
Unlike traditional QE, which can breed inequality and inflate bubbles, DeFED leverages smart contracts and RWAs to ensure transparency and distribute benefits equitably.
Decentralised token governance reduces the manipulation risks inherent in centralisation. We also counter the inflation caused by infinite money printing by using regenerative RWAs to cap expansion. Finally, automated triggers aligned with Basel III replace discretionary interventions to mitigate the moral hazard of bailouts.
Parisii designed DeFED to be quantum-tolerant from inception. Why do you believe retrofitting cryptographic security is incompatible with a lasting monetary system?
Designing DeFED to be quantum-tolerant from inception ensures foundational resilience. Retrofitting cryptographic security is incompatible with a lasting monetary system due to systemic vulnerabilities, costs, and disruptions.
Quantum computing threatens current encryption, risking asset theft or forgery on the blockchain. Retrofitting, which involves patching after the threat, creates patchwork systems that are prone to exploits during transitions. This erodes trust and incurs high costs in reissuing tokens and migrating ledgers. It also causes downtime, which is incompatible with 24/7 finance.
From experience with UUNET and IFX, security must be central. DeFED’s kernel-level encryption prevents this, enabling seamless Agentic Commerce. Lasting systems demand proactive design for permanence, not reactive fixes. Retrofitting signals short-sightedness.
When the world looks back at this period of financial transition, what do you think the industry will have misunderstood most about the move from traditional banking toward digitally-native financial systems?
The industry will have misunderstood that the transition to digitally native systems isn’t about replacing banks with tech but about evolving to regenerative, appreciative models.
Many would see it as a “bankless” disruption or incremental digitisation, overlooking the need for hybrids such as Web4. This is AI-first, quantum-tolerant, RWA-backed finance.
Misconceptions would include overemphasising speculation over sustainability, such as ignoring carbon’s role in anchoring value. Regulatory clarity would be viewed as a hurdle rather than an enabler.
Finally, the industry might underestimate AI’s agency in Agentic Commerce, where systems self-optimise. At Parisii, DeFED embodies this: transforming depreciative debt into asset-based growth. The misunderstanding might be framed as evolution versus revolution, rather than integration for enduring value.