Every term, defined plainly.

Any tangible or contractual asset that exists outside a blockchain — real estate, corporate debt, commodities, invoices — that is represented on-chain via tokenisation. The core challenge RWA assessment solves: proving the on-chain token genuinely corresponds to a legally enforceable, real-world claim.

A scoring approach where a strong result in one component cannot offset (“compensate for”) a weak result in another. Achieved using geometric mean aggregation and mandatory hard gates, instead of a simple weighted average.

A mandatory minimum threshold that a component must clear regardless of how strong the overall score is. If a hard gate fails (e.g. Data Truth scores below 30/100), the entire composite score voids — it is not averaged away.

The mathematical property of geometric means (unlike arithmetic averages) that a single component near zero drags the entire composite toward zero, rather than being diluted by other high scores. This is what makes non-compensatory scoring mathematically enforceable, not just a stated policy.

A technology-neutral constitutional standard defining the verification requirements any institution can implement for RWA trust computation — five foundational pillars and six constitutional pre-conditions that must pass before scoring even begins.

The seven-component non-compensatory scoring methodology (Q1, Q2, H, C, T, L, I) applied to every assessed asset. See the component breakdown below for each part.

Liquidity, leverage, debt service coverage, profitability, efficiency, and collateral coverage — the hard financial numbers, combined via geometric mean of six sub-metrics.

Borrower profile, business/management track record, and industry/market risk — the softer structural factors that quantitative ratios alone miss.

Independent, human-conducted checks: on-site inspection, structural/factory survey, and audited financial review. The layer where a person, not just an algorithm, confirms the asset is real.

Validator/DAO pool participation in scoring, used only when a decentralised governance layer is operationally active on the tokenisation platform. Frequently omitted (“six-component configuration”) at deal sizes where no DAO pool is active — a sanctioned configuration under AITS.

A hard-gated component (threshold ≥ 30/100) verifying that registry data, oracle feeds, and on-chain hashes are consistent and independently cross-corroborated — e.g. land registry vs. token registry vs. satellite imagery, all matching.

A hard-gated component (threshold ≥ 30/100) confirming that security interests (mortgage, fixed/floating charge) are registered, prioritised correctly, and backed by an independent legal opinion confirming enforceability.

A hard-gated component (threshold ≥ 40/100) confirming KYC/KYB completion, sanctions/PEP screening, UBO disclosure, and that the on-chain token binding matches the verified legal owner exactly.

A trusted data source that feeds real-world information (property valuations, registry status, satellite imagery) into or alongside the on-chain environment, so token data can be checked against off-chain reality.

A permissioned token standard for security tokens on Ethereum-compatible chains, built for regulatory compliance — supporting transfer restrictions, identity verification, and eligibility checks at the protocol level. Common standard for MAS-regulated RWA tokenisation (e.g. ADDX).

Cryptographic and registry-level confirmation that a specific on-chain token holder corresponds exactly to the verified legal owner of the underlying asset — a core check within the Ownership Legitimacy (I) gate.

The process of issuing a blockchain-based token that represents legal or economic rights to an underlying real-world asset, enabling fractional ownership, transfer, and settlement on-chain.