The Real Cost of SBLC Deals — Why Pay-on-Delivery Wins

A receiver-side lens on fees, validation, and keeping leverage until bank-to-bank confirmation.

By Kourosh Karimpour (kok34095) • World Projects Pro

In SBLC/BG markets, the most expensive mistake is paying fees before anything bank-verifiable happens. Upfront models shift risk to the receiver, invite sunk-cost pressure, and reward messaging rather than delivery. Pay-on-Delivery (PoD) flips those incentives: parties are compensated against milestones that a bank can confirm—not screenshots, not promises.

1) What “Delivery” Should Mean

2) Upfront vs. Pay-on-Delivery

Upfront models pay for intent; PoD pays for progress. Receivers keep leverage until the provider crosses objective checkpoints. When combined with AML/KYC discipline and clear non-binding language, PoD reduces disputes and shortens cycles with serious counterparties.

3) Practical PoD Structure

  1. Non-binding outline: roles, steps, timelines; obligations activate only upon reciprocal confirmations.
  2. Escrow logic: funds release on objective evidence (e.g., authenticated RWA, readiness for MT760).
  3. Bank-grade documentation: avoid ambiguous terms; preserve receiver protections.
  4. Audit trail: dataroom access, sign-offs, and immutable logs for each step.

Need a bank-friendly pack? See our SBLC Programs and Documents.

4) Red Flags to Avoid

5) Receiver-First Checklist

6) Bottom Line

PoD aligns incentives with delivery. If your use case requires structuring, we’ll prepare a clean, verifiable pathway with disciplined risk control—without surrendering leverage. Introduce your case and we’ll respond with a non-binding outline and precise checkpoints to close.

Note: This article is informational and non-binding. Execution requires reciprocal confirmations and bank-level validation.