Payment systems
Keep authorization holds, captures, reversals, and rejected attempts as first-class ledger outcomes — with idempotency that survives retries and at-least-once delivery.
Solutions
Different value-exchange systems fail in different ways — a double charge, an orphaned hold, a settlement that never reconciles, a rejected payment nobody can find. TulaDB puts the same balanced, durable, recoverable core under all of them.
Keep authorization holds, captures, reversals, and rejected attempts as first-class ledger outcomes — with idempotency that survives retries and at-least-once delivery.
Track available and posted balances distinctly, so pending holds never overstate what a user can actually spend, and top-ups reconcile exactly.
Fund and defund through control accounts while preserving double-entry correctness — positions and settlement movement in one atomic ledger transaction.
Model tiered, direct, and indirect settlement together so correctness doesn't fracture across separate services and reconciliation jobs.
Split payments, escrow-style holds, payouts, and refunds stay balanced across buyers, sellers, and platform accounts — with every rejection recorded.
Give internal ledgers, loyalty balances, and treasury tooling one correctness contract instead of a spreadsheet of accounting rules per service.
The shared failure mode
Whatever the product on top, operators end up asking the same things during an incident. TulaDB is designed so each has a direct, durable answer instead of a reconstruction effort.
Is it a fit?
You want holds, reversals, rejected visibility, idempotency, and recovery owned by the runtime — not re-implemented in every service, job, and support tool.
Financial state is light, single-writer, and rarely reconciled — a generic table may be enough until value movement becomes central to the product.
Private preview
Tell us the value-movement patterns you're modeling and we'll scope a focused evaluation against them.