Published risk methodology for digital credit.
Methodology, computation engine, and verification layer
Module weights
Weights below are sourced directly from the computation engine. Modifying a weight requires CRO sign-off and a new framework version tag.
Module 1A — BTC Collateral Lending
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| transparency | 0.20 |
| collateralControl | 0.35 |
| jurisdiction | 0.15 |
| structuralRisk | 0.25 |
| trackRecord | 0.05 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 1B — Treasury Preferred Shares
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| btcCoverage | 0.30 |
| incomeMechanism | 0.25 |
| marketRisk | 0.20 |
| convertibility | 0.17 |
| issuerMaturity | 0.08 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 1C — Stablecoin Yield
Module 1C-A — CeFi Stablecoins
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| reserveQuality | 0.35 |
| regulatoryAcct | 0.20 |
| yieldCommitment | 0.10 |
| liquidity | 0.25 |
| jurisdiction | 0.10 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 1C-B — DeFi Stablecoins
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| protocolSecurity | 0.40 |
| governanceRisk | 0.30 |
| yieldTransparency | 0.15 |
| liquidity | 0.10 |
| pegStability | 0.05 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 4 — Infrastructure
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| breakeven_btc_price_tier | 0.12 |
| energy_cost_per_kwh_tier | 0.10 |
| margin_stability_tier | 0.08 |
| uptime_pct_tier | 0.10 |
| historical_downtime_tier | 0.08 |
| maintenance_quality_tier | 0.07 |
| legal_structure_tier | 0.07 |
| asset_custody_tier | 0.07 |
| jurisdiction_tier | 0.06 |
| dashboard_realtime_tier | 0.08 |
| audit_frequency_tier | 0.07 |
| capacity_scaling_tier | 0.10 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 5 — Market Neutral
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| strategy_type_tier | 0.10 |
| sharpe_ratio_tier | 0.10 |
| aum_disclosure_tier | 0.10 |
| leverage_tier | 0.09 |
| counterparty_tier | 0.08 |
| collateral_segregation_tier | 0.08 |
| funding_rate_tier | 0.07 |
| venue_tier | 0.07 |
| pricing_infra_tier | 0.06 |
| exchange_diversity_tier | 0.08 |
| position_visibility_tier | 0.07 |
| track_record_duration_tier | 0.04 |
| drawdown_history_tier | 0.03 |
| strategy_disclosure_tier | 0.02 |
| audit_tier | 0.01 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 6 — Venture
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| track_record_tier | 0.12 |
| execution_capability_tier | 0.10 |
| team_depth_tier | 0.08 |
| supply_schedule_tier | 0.07 |
| unlock_risk_tier | 0.07 |
| fdv_reasonableness_tier | 0.06 |
| tam_tier | 0.07 |
| narrative_strength_tier | 0.07 |
| category_maturity_tier | 0.06 |
| smart_money_tier | 0.09 |
| syndicate_diversity_tier | 0.06 |
| listing_likelihood_tier | 0.06 |
| exit_scenario_tier | 0.05 |
| vesting_tier | 0.04 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 7 — Tokenised RWA
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| credit_risk_tier | 0.12 |
| duration_tier | 0.10 |
| yield_sustainability_tier | 0.08 |
| enforceability_tier | 0.09 |
| investor_protection_tier | 0.09 |
| jurisdiction_tier | 0.07 |
| custodian_tier | 0.11 |
| bankruptcy_remoteness_tier | 0.09 |
| redemption_terms_tier | 0.08 |
| secondary_market_tier | 0.07 |
| reporting_tier | 0.05 |
| audit_tier | 0.05 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Module 8 — Volatility
Institutional OTC
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| strategy_design | 0.25 |
| counterparty_quality | 0.30 |
| execution_infrastructure | 0.15 |
| track_record | 0.15 |
| transparency | 0.15 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Exchange Venue
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| strategy_design | 0.20 |
| counterparty_quality | 0.15 |
| execution_infrastructure | 0.25 |
| track_record | 0.15 |
| transparency | 0.25 |
| Total | 1.00 |
On Chain DOV
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| strategy_design | 0.20 |
| counterparty_quality | 0.25 |
| execution_infrastructure | 0.15 |
| track_record | 0.10 |
| transparency | 0.30 |
| Total | 1.00 |
Determinism & auditability
- Risk Indicator calculations are deterministic when the approved inputs, methodology version, engine version and configuration are held constant (covered by the calculator determinism test).
- Field-level confidence below 0.70 triggers worst-case substitution before the weighted sum. Digital Asset ETP indicators are pre-effective until evidence-type recalibration completes: they use raw bucket values, their confidence is diagnostic only, and worst-case substitution is not yet applied. As at 12 October 2026: for Modules 4–8, the indicators shown were computed before engine 1.1.0 (5 October 2026), which also applies worst-case substitution when a field's confidence is missing. The disclosure is removed when these indicators are certified under engine 1.1.0. As at 12 October 2026: for Modules 1A–1C, the indicators shown were set in June 2026 and have not been recomputed under engine 1.1.0 (5 October 2026). The disclosure is removed when these indicators are certified under engine 1.1.0.
- Evidence-type recalibration is the planned review of the fixed confidence values assigned to each evidence type; worst-case substitution for Digital Asset ETP takes effect when it completes.
- Indicator-level hard rules apply after the weighted sum, never before. Three hard rules are pre-effective and do not yet modify any published indicator: the high-depeg override, the algorithmic-stablecoin cap, and the BTC Collateral Lending regulatory-controversy deduction. The HV30 cap is narrower: HV30 > 35% caps only the HV30 component at 5/100 before it is weighted within the Market Risk composite — the criterion as a whole is not capped.
- Duration multipliers apply to the Risk Indicator only — never to expected income.
Further reading
- Interactive Risk Indicator calculator — call the live computeScore() function with your own bucket values.
- API documentation — endpoints, authentication, language samples.
- Default-proxy impairment table — historical 12-month impairment rates by risk band.
Scope & Limitations
What ACI Produces
The ACI Framework v1.0 produces quantitative risk indicators for digital asset yield providers across nine defined modules: BTC Collateral Lending, Treasury Preferred Shares, Stablecoin Yield, Infrastructure, Market Neutral, Venture, Tokenised RWA, Volatility and Digital Asset ETP.
Risk Indicators are computed from a defined set of evidence inputs under a versioned methodology. Risk Indicator calculations are deterministic when the approved inputs, methodology version, engine version and configuration are held constant.
What ACI Does Not Produce
ACI does not assess the creditworthiness of any provider, nor does it evaluate the suitability of any instrument for any particular investor.
ACI Risk Indicators are framework-defined outputs derived from observable evidence inputs and methodology-defined criteria. They are not recommendations to allocate capital, transact, or refrain from transacting.
ACI does not produce forward-looking return forecasts or yield predictions.
Evidence & Data Limitations
Risk Indicators reflect evidence available at the time of computation.
ACI does not independently audit, attest to, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of third-party evidence sources.
Providers with limited public disclosure receive lower confidence indicators rather than adjusted Risk Indicators.
Evidence packs are versioned.
Confidence Levels
Each Risk Indicator carries a confidence indicator: HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW.
A LOW confidence indicator does not imply that a provider is inherently higher risk. It indicates that one or more criteria were evaluated under evidence constraints relative to ACI's standard evidence thresholds.
Blockchain Timestamp Anchoring
As at 11 October 2026, each current published Risk Indicator for an active provider carries a stored SHA-256 content hash. Bitcoin anchoring applies from the 2026-Q3 certification period onward; as at that date, no published Risk Indicator is anchored. The verify endpoint reports a Risk Indicator with a stored hash and no Bitcoin proof as LOCAL_ONLY, and a record without a stored hash as NO_RECORD. The hashing pipeline is live for all new certifications. Correction, 13 October 2026: this statement previously referred to every published Risk Indicator; it applies to each current published Risk Indicator for an active provider.
Where a Risk Indicator hash is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps, the anchor establishes that the Risk Indicator existed prior to a specific block height. Anchoring state is recorded per Risk Indicator and is reported by the verification endpoint; a Risk Indicator that carries no anchor is reported as such rather than as verified.
An anchor proves existence before a block. It cannot be applied retroactively to establish that a Risk Indicator existed earlier than the anchor itself. ACI's timestamping design uses certification as the submission trigger and is limited to the 2026-Q3 certification period onward. The 2026-Q2 certification-period indicators remain outside the anchoring scope.
Once applied, this anchoring functions as an audit trail and does not constitute endorsement, certification, or validation of the provider by any third party.
Framework Governance & Versioning
ACI Framework v1.0 has been the active methodology since 1 April 2026.
Material methodology changes — including modifications to computation logic, weighting structures, module definitions, or evidence standards — require CRO sign-off and 30-day subscriber notification.