Public Risk Profiles 1.0
Public risk profiles
Each profile organizes underlying assets, holder rights, exit terms, contract controls, and institutions and operations. Individual assessments answer specific risk questions for the named fund, holder, route or deployment.
How scores work
Higher scores indicate stronger defined conditions within the same question and compatible scope. A value of 100 is the strongest defined condition. Profiles present individual question scores, observations and supporting sources.
Each question is assessed separately. An unresolved input keeps its question open. When the evidence supports several possible conditions, the profile shows the observations and supported range.
Selecting a score
- Identify the product, holder, route or deployment relevant to the question.
- Apply confirmed adverse restrictions in that same scope.
- Select the strongest fully supported condition after those restrictions.
- Keep unresolved conditions and supported alternatives visible.
A confirmed adverse condition can support its score with the evidence establishing its scope, operative fact and impact. Register protection at 50 requires the authoritative register and transfer process to establish an unprotected interval; correction protection can remain unresolved with evidence coverage shown as two of three.
Scoring criteria
What enforceable claim does this holder have?
We evaluate the binding claim of the exact holder against the fund, segregated assets, intermediary or issuer. Independent legal assurance strengthens confidence.
Supporting evidence
- Exact obligor, instrument and holder scope
- Binding claim and enforceability
- 100
- The exact holder has a direct enforceable legal interest in the fund or independently segregated assets.
- 75
- An enforceable beneficial claim runs through an identified intermediary or segregated vehicle and requires performance through that route.
- 50
- An enforceable contractual claim exists against the general issuer only.
- 25
- The claim is confirmed subordinated or subject to material discretion.
- 0
- Formal terms confirm no enforceable claim or an expired claim.
Which obligations can reach this asset pool?
We evaluate asset segregation, insolvency priority and shared liabilities. Unresolved exceptions keep the strongest 100 or 75 conditions open; known shared liability can limit the assessment to 50 or below. Unresolved subordination keeps the precise value open.
Supporting evidence
- Legal asset and claim boundaries
- Insolvency priority and cross liability exceptions
- 100
- Assets and legal obligations are fully segregated. The assessed pool bears only its own instrument’s obligations, with no additional cross liability.
- 75
- Segregation is clear with defined statutory or contractual exceptions, and no general issuer or cross-series shared liability.
- 50
- There is explicit exposure to general issuer credit risk or shared cross-series liability.
- 25
- Recovery is explicitly subordinated or materially restricted.
- 0
- Recovery rights have been lost or lack an enforceable basis.
When does a token transfer become a protected legal holding?
We evaluate the full transfer-to-registration process and protection against erroneous or disputed corrections. The authoritative register and correction powers are assessed together.
Supporting evidence
- Authoritative register and legal-holder definition
- Full transfer-to-rights process
- Error correction and disputed rights
- 100
- Legal rights and authoritative token or register status take effect atomically. Correction cannot revoke protected vested rights.
- 75
- A separate register has formal protection covering the full transfer-to-rights process and correction.
- 50
- A confirmed unprotected interval between token transfer and legal registration affects the claim.
- 25
- Rights can be rewritten without effective constraints, as confirmed by evidence.
- 0
- Confirmed register failure causes loss of rights.
What is the binding ordinary product-payment deadline?
The scenario uses the admitted holder, USD 5 million held and USD 1 million requested before cutoff through one ordinary route with a complete valid request. The deadline runs from the specified starting event to delivery, using the actual calendar and holiday rules. Seven calendar days supports a five-weekday bound only with complete starting and delivery rules. Actual deadline breaches are assessed separately.
Supporting evidence
- One applicable ordinary route and holder
- Binding valid-request-to-product-delivery deadline and calendar
- 100
- The same route has a binding product-delivery maximum of one business day.
- 75
- The binding product-delivery maximum is no more than three business days.
- 50
- The binding product-delivery maximum is no more than five business days.
- 25
- The maximum is explicitly bounded and exceeds five business days.
- 0
- There is explicitly no delivery deadline from inception, or a current complete suspension.
Can this admitted holder request USD 1 million from USD 5 million held?
The scenario uses the admitted holder, USD 5 million held and USD 1 million requested on the same ordinary route. We evaluate legal request eligibility and ordinary limits. Cash availability and execution performance have their own evidence.
Supporting evidence
- Investor and amount eligibility on the same route
- Minimum request, remaining holding and ordinary capacity limits
- 100
- Formal terms permit the full standard-scenario amount, with no ordinary capacity or queue restriction affecting it.
- 75
- The full amount falls within formal ordinary limits, with an explicit finite aggregate or queue condition.
- 50
- An explicit ordinary restriction affects the amount, with enforceable bounded installments available.
- 25
- Only fragmented or highly discretionary capacity is confirmed.
- 0
- The standard investor has no enforceable redemption route, as confirmed by evidence.
What on-chain authorization can replace this implementation?
The numerical condition covers one on-chain authorization capable of upgrading the exact observed deployment. Other permission structures remain descriptive. One chain authorization can represent several people or organizations.
Supporting evidence
- Exact deployment and observed implementation-upgrade authority at the pinned block or finalized window
- Actual chain authorization path, threshold and independently required chain guard against the single authority
- 50
- A single on-chain signature authorization can perform a material upgrade, with no independent on-chain blocking mechanism.
What collective conditions apply to a derivative governance action?
We evaluate enforceable court, arbitration or intermediary remedies available to the exact holder on behalf of the trust or series. Personal register correction and other individual claims are assessed separately.
Supporting evidence
- Exact holder and decision scope
- Enforceable complaint, objection or legal remedy and restrictions
- 100
- Independent binding relief can restore impaired rights and award compensation, with direct applicability to the exact holder.
- 75
- Independent binding relief expressly provides restoration or compensation.
- 50
- Enforceable relief has a material collective litigation threshold or applicability restriction.
- 25
- Relief is solely at the complained-about party’s discretion, or ineffective constraints are confirmed.
- 0
- Confirmed failure of relief prevents restoration of rights.
Who must approve variation of this class's attached rights?
We evaluate approval rights of the affected share class, including first-meeting and adjourned-meeting quorums and permitted exceptions. Collective approval is assessed for its specified decision scope.
Supporting evidence
- Exact affected share class, attached-rights variation rule and competent decision body
- Required class consent, quorum, adjournment, exceptions and bypass boundaries
- 100
- A material change to economic rights requires affected-holder consent or an independent party’s enforceable veto, with no bypass.
- 75
- Material changes are constrained by objective legal boundaries, advance notice and an effective exit or objection process.
- 50
- Material discretion is concentrated, with limited notice, exit or objection protection.
- 25
- A material defect involving unconstrained powers is confirmed.
- 0
- Confirmed abuse has caused damage that remains unrestored.
Can this holder seek binding official-register correction and compensation?
We evaluate enforceable correction of the official register and resulting compensation available to the exact holder. Other claims and nominee records require their own evidence.
Supporting evidence
- Exact holder and decision scope
- Enforceable complaint, objection or legal remedy and restrictions
- 100
- Independent binding relief can restore impaired rights and award compensation, with direct applicability to the exact holder.
- 75
- Independent binding relief expressly provides restoration or compensation.
- 50
- Enforceable relief has a material collective litigation threshold or applicability restriction.
- 25
- Relief is solely at the complained-about party’s discretion, or ineffective constraints are confirmed.
- 0
- Confirmed failure of relief prevents restoration of rights.
Evidence and confidence
Binding legal terms establish rights. Official records establish entity and regulatory status. Dated reports establish reported holdings and operating metrics. Chain observations establish the inspected contract controls. Each source keeps its scope, classification and original date.
Primary sources support numerical assessments. Historical research supports observations and context. Medium confidence uses applicable original terms, reported data or chain observations. High confidence additionally requires independent substantive corroboration of the same proposition from distinct original sources. Low or unconfirmed confidence withholds current values.
Evidence coverage shows how many question-specific requirements are supported. Confidence describes the quality of that support. Each measure stays local to the question.
Dates and updates
Source dates describe when facts were reported or observed. Assessment dates describe when the profile was calculated. Current-applicability checks have their own dates.
Current legal terms and qualifications require an applicable check within 30 days. Current chain permissions expire 72 hours after the earliest material observation in the pinned block or finalized window. An earlier supporting-source expiry shortens the window.
A dated snapshot retains its assessed value and original dates. At expiry, feed failure or a confirmed severe event, affected current values are withheld. Expired assessments display Needs review. Historical values and confirmed-event evidence remain available with their reviewed recovery status.
Contract controls
Profiles show code coverage, upgrades, authority, protective pauses, blacklists, mint and burn permissions, critical dependencies and recovery. Each observation applies to its inspected code and deployment. Historical security reports retain their original findings and dates.
Comparison and history
Numerical comparison uses the same question and compatible legal, metric and deployment scope. Different scopes retain their facts side by side. Derivative actions, class-rights variation and register correction each have a separate question. Historical ratings retain their original method, values and dates.
Particula informs the separation of underlying assets, structure and counterparties. Credora informs the distinction between underlying credit and the holder’s wrapper claim. bench3 defines the scoring conditions.
Historical Treasury 2.0.2 methodology · Historical Public Fundamentals methodology