Scale EV Roaming.
Control Exposure.
Release Working Capital.

ChargeStream is clearing and settlement infrastructure for EV roaming networks.

Built for Charge Point Operators and e-Mobility Service Providers, ChargeStream converts fragmented roaming activity into deterministic clearing and daily net settlement - reducing gross exposure, improving capital efficiency, and strengthening treasury control while structuring roaming like regulated payment infrastructure.

Sitting behind connectivity and CPMS platforms, we operate the clearing and settlement layer, transforming exchanged Charge Data Records (CDRs) into net positions across counterparties.

Operating with banking and regulated payment institution partners, participants are provisioned with addressable settlement accounts through which automated, real-time funds transfers occur over open banking payment rails.

Chargestream clearing and settlement flow illustration

One Financial Source of Truth

Because finance requires certainty

EV roaming sessions involve 3–6 parties per transaction, generating millions of Charge Data Records every month at scale. Most platforms exchange data. They do not create financial certainty.
ChargeStream converts raw Charge Data Records into deterministic settlement positions - who owes whom, how much, and when - every day.
No reconciliation drift. No spreadsheet dependency. No margin erosion.

  • Single authoritative ledger across all counterparties
  • Multilateral net settlement can reduce gross exposure by 40–70%, depending on network structure and settlement cadence.
  • Daily net position visible at executive level
  • Audit-ready outcomes

Ask yourself

If challenged today, could you state your exact daily net settlement position across all counterparties?

How much financial exposure increases every time you add a new counterparty?

Chargestream clearing and settlement flow illustration
Net settlement
Daily clearing
Ledger truth
Audit-ready
Executive visibility

Stop Financing the Ecosystem

Turn settlement timing into capital advantage

Roaming settlement cycles often run 30–60 days, forcing operators to carry material working capital and counterparty exposure.
Multilateral clearing converts fragmented bilateral transaction flows into a single net settlement position per participant, dramatically reducing settlement complexity and liquidity exposure (See FAQ). ChargeStream enables intraday clearing and interday settlement, aligning cash movement with value delivery.
Shorter cycles reduce balance sheet drag. Predictable timing improves treasury planning. Capital is released back into growth.

  • Shorter cycles reduce outstanding exposure
  • Predictable cash timing improves DSO and treasury control
  • Net positions visible daily by counterparty

Ask yourself

Why should your balance sheet fund someone else’s settlement delay?

What could daily settlement unlock for your balance sheet?

Chargestream clearing and settlement flow illustration
Working capital
Daily settlement
Cash control
Risk reduction
Treasury view

Scale Without Operational Headcount

Growth without spreadsheet debt

In roaming, operators typically add 1 finance or ops hire for every 2–3 new partners. That model scales cost linearly with growth!
ChargeStream automates clearing, netting, and settlement at the platform layer, so partner growth does not require process expansion.
Growth becomes predictable. Margins improve with scale. Key-person risk disappears.

  • Partner growth without linear headcount growth
  • Automated, repeatable settlement cycles
  • No bilateral logic or manual reconciliation to maintain
  • Operating leverage replaces operational fragility

Ask yourself

Does your roaming partner growth improve your margins - or quietly erode them?

If your most experienced ops manager left tomorrow, Would payments and billing still operate predictably?

Chargestream clearing and settlement flow illustration
Operational leverage
Automation first
Predictable scaling
Operational efficiency

Payments-Grade, Not “Platform” Grade

Built for audit scrutiny, not reconciliation guesswork

Most roaming platforms exchange data and reconcile later. Payments infrastructure does not guess - it applies double-entry accounting and deterministic rules from the outset.
ChargeStream executes the same structural principles used in regulated payment systems. Settlement structure is enterprise risk management.
Explicit liability ownership. definitive outcomes. Audit-ready financial traceability.
Roaming is treated as money - not metadata.

  • Explicit liability ownership at every step
  • Deterministic outcomes - no post-facto interpretation, no drift
  • Structures finance teams and auditors already trust

Ask yourself

If challenged by an auditor today, could you explain - step by step - how every roaming euro is accounted for?

Do your settlement numbers come from Canonical rules, or from reconciliation after the fact?

Double-entry
Deterministic
Audit-ready
Payments-grade
Executive clarity

Roaming growth compounds contractual and financial risk.

ChargeStream replaces fragmentation with predictable financial structure.

The Current Reality of EV Roaming.

Roaming grows revenue. It also multiplies financial complexity Every new counterparty introduces another bilateral agreement, another pricing logic, another reconciliation surface. What begins as three partners becomes thirty - and with each one, exposure compounds.
Most roaming platforms exchange data. They do not create financial certainty.

Bilateral agreements everywhere

Each roaming partner operates on different commercial terms, settlement timing, fee structures and dispute processes. As counterparties scale, so does operational variance - and so does financial risk.

Month-end reconciliation cycles

CDRs are aggregated and disputed weeks after the charge. Revenue certainty lags operational reality. Finance operates in hindsight.

Gross exposure builds silently

Revenue is recognised before cash is settled. Net positions remain unclear across multiple partners, increasing working capital requirements and counterparty risk.

Spreadsheet pricing logic

Tariffs, VAT treatments, FX conversions and special partner terms live in unmanaged spreadsheets. Institutional knowledge becomes person-dependent and difficult to audit.

Treasury visibility gaps

Without definitive daily netting, treasury lacks a real-time view of aggregate exposure across the roaming network. Liquidity planning becomes reactive instead of controlled.

Dispute loops and rework

Minor CDR interpretation differences create repetitive reconciliation cycles. Each dispute consumes finance and operations capacity while quietly eroding margin.

FX / VAT inconsistency risk

Cross-border roaming introduces currency conversion timing differences and tax treatment variation. Small inconsistencies compound across high transaction volumes.

Audit surfaces multiply

Every additional counterparty increases control requirements, documentation effort and exception handling. Governance complexity scales faster than transaction volume.

Bottom line

EV Roaming is not a data problem. It is a capital and control problem.


What changes with ChargeStream

Today

Month-end billing / reconciliation

Positions confirm late after aggregation and dispute cycles. Cash collection extends into 30/60/90-day terms.

Spreadsheet pricing logic

Rules live outside controlled systems, creating drift and key-person risk.

Exposure builds silently

Revenue recognised before cash certainty exists across the roaming chain.

Disputes and rework

Interpretation differences create repeat reconciliation loops.

With ChargeStream

Deterministic daily net positions

Daily positions computed by rule, consistent across counterparties.

Intraday clearing → structured net settlement

Clearing runs continuously; settlement executes on defined cadence.

Governed pricing, VAT & FX engine

Rules codified and versioned inside a controlled system.

Controlled liability & audit trails

Clear ownership, traceable postings, and evidence built in.

Engineered for Clearing at Scale

Structural Architecture

1. Data Ingestion - CDR Normalisation

Validate, normalise, and bind each CDR to party, contract, and tariff context at ingestion time.

Problem
Structural variation in CDRs creates downstream ambiguity and rework.
Approach
Normalise records and bind them to party, contract, and tariff context at entry.
Control
Reject invalid or misaligned records before they enter clearing cycles.
Effect
Every record enters as a governed financial event, ready for deterministic clearing.
2. Intraday Clearing Cycles

Deterministic intraday cycles compute provisional debit and credit positions inside fixed timing windows.

Problem
Month-end or ad hoc invoicing extends exposure. Positions remain undefined for days or weeks while counterparties reconcile independently.
Approach
Run structured 4-hour clearing windows across all eligible CDRs submitted into the scheme.
Control
Cadence, counterparty grouping, and settlement structure are governed by ChargeStream scheme rules.
Effect
Exposure becomes visible and bounded intraday.All participants operate from identical computed positions within the same clearing rhythm.
3. Cycle Aggregation & Summary Generation

Consolidate high-volume CDR flows into defined clearing positions per scheme participant.

Problem
Millions of CDRs obscure meaning; finance teams cannot see the net position.
Approach
Aggregate each cycle into debit totals, credit totals, VAT, FX, and provisional net.
Control
Store immutable cycle IDs and source references for full traceability to CDR level.
Effect
Operators review defined numbers with provable provenance, not spreadsheets.
4. Net Settlement Advisement Reporting

Consolidate cleared cycles into formal settlement advisements that state each participant’s net liability or receivable across the scheme.

Problem
Bilateral invoicing introduces interpretation risk and timing variance.
Approach
Generate settlement advisements from cleared cycles across defined settlement periods.
Control
Reference cycle IDs, time windows, rule versions, and posting identifiers in every advisement.
Effect
All participants operate from a single defined net position before funds move.

Operational timing model
5. Double-Entry Posting & Log Chaining

Post every clearing and settlement event through definitive double-entry journals with tamper-evident log chaining.

Problem
Position calculation without ledger control weakens auditability and liability clarity.
Approach
Apply double-entry posting rules so every debit has a corresponding credit.
Control
Chain journal entries via sequential log hashes; changes break the chain.
Effect
Clearing operates as payments-grade infrastructure with provable integrity.
6. Net Settlement Funds Movements

Execute net funds movement aligned to settlement identifiers and ledger positions so cash matches computed reality.

Problem
Exposure persists until funds align with the ledger-defined position.
Approach
Trigger net transfers once advisements finalise; EMSPs fund liabilities and CPOs receive payouts.
Control
Reconcile cash ledger and clearing ledger; enforce alignment to settlement IDs and postings.
Effect
Gross exposure compresses into controlled net settlement with treasury-grade certainty.

How we Automate the Clearing and Settlement Stream

From Fragmented Multilateral Invoicing to Structured Daily Clearing and Net Settlement


Settlement Lifecycle Visualisation - Intraday Clearing to Net Cash Execution 12345 6 ChargeStreamSETTLEMENTCLEARINGeMSPeMSPeMSPCPOCPOCPO

Intraday Clearing Cycles

CDRs are ingested, validated, normalised, and aggregated into ledger-aligned clearing positions throughout the day.

Exposure Compression

Bilateral gross roaming exposure consolidates into a single deterministic net position per counterparty.

Settlement Identifiers

Each net obligation is assigned a settlement ID - linking clearing records, advisements, and ledger postings.

Cash Alignment

Funds move only against computed net positions, ensuring cash matches the ledger - not invoices.

Frequently Asked Questions

What problem does ChargeStream actually solve?

Who is ChargeStream for?

How is ChargeStream different from OCPI hubs or roaming platforms?

Do you replace our existing roaming provider?

How does clearing work?

How does settlement work?

How does multilateral clearing reduce settlement complexity?

In traditional bilateral settlement models, each participant settles directly with every counterparty they transact with. As the number of participants in a network grows, the number of financial relationships grows rapidly.

For a network with N participants, the number of potential bilateral settlement relationships grows approximately with (more precisely N × (N−1) / 2). Each of these relationships may require invoicing, reconciliation, and settlement transfers.

Multilateral clearing changes this structure.

Instead of settling each bilateral obligation individually, all transactions across the network are first cleared and offset against one another. The system then calculates a single net settlement position for each participant.

This dramatically reduces settlement complexity and liquidity requirements.

To illustrate how this scales:

Participants Bilateral Relationships Net Positions After Clearing
5 10 5
10 45 10
20 190 20
50 1,225 50

In a bilateral model, the number of financial relationships grows quadratically as the network expands. In a clearing model, the number of settlement positions grows linearly, because each participant only has a single net position to settle per cycle.

This structural compression means that:

  • Multiple bilateral obligations are consolidated into one net position per participant
  • The number of settlement transfers is significantly reduced
  • Liquidity requirements fall because only net amounts must be funded
  • Counterparty exposure becomes easier to manage
  • Financial reconciliation becomes simpler and more predictable

This approach is widely used in financial market infrastructure, including card networks, ACH systems, securities clearing houses, and foreign exchange settlement systems.

ChargeStream applies the same principle to EV roaming transactions. Instead of each Charge Point Operator (CPO) and e-Mobility Service Provider (eMSP) settling bilaterally with every counterparty, ChargeStream converts exchanged Charge Data Records (CDRs) into a single deterministic net position per participant for each settlement cycle, simplifying financial operations across the roaming ecosystem as the network grows.

Do you move money or just calculate it?

Is ChargeStream regulated?

Who holds the money?

How often do settlements run?

How does ChargeStream handle VAT and tax?

Can we set different commercial terms per counterparty?

How do fees work?

What reporting do we get?

Is the data auditable?

How does onboarding work?

Does this scale across countries?

What happens if a counterparty doesn’t pay?

Is ChargeStream real-time?

Who owns the data?

Why should we trust ChargeStream?

What does success look like after go-live?

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙