Trust Classification System

Six classes from sovereign registry to oracle-only.

Trust Classes classify the strength and nature of the trust anchor behind each asset — not merely the asset type. Bonding scales inversely with verifiability: stronger anchors require less stake; weaker anchors require more.

See the Trust Score model Back to asset classes

Whitepaper§7 Trust Classification System

Strongest anchor

Class I · Sovereign Registry Anchored

Asset is anchored in an authoritative, government-operated registry that publicly records ownership and encumbrances. Ownership can be independently verified without reliance on the issuer or a private intermediary.

Examples

· Certain real estate registries
· Government securities registries
· Legally authoritative corporate share registries

Required verification

Registry extracts, reference identifiers, licensed verifier confirmation.

Economic bonding (α)1 – 2%

Fraud requires manipulation of a sovereign registry — legally punishable, institutionally difficult.

Strongest anchor

Class II · Regulated Custodian Anchored

Asset is held by a regulated custodian whose records are legally enforceable and subject to regulatory oversight. Ownership confirmed through a licensed custodian rather than a public registry.

Examples

· Public equities held at a regulated broker
· Precious metals in insured vaults
· Structured products at a regulated bank

Required verification

Custodian confirmation, insurance documentation, physical audit validation.

Economic bonding (α)3 – 5%

Trust derives from regulatory oversight, legal liability, auditable custody, and insurance.

III

Mid-strength anchor

Class III · Dual-Professional Verified

No authoritative registry or regulated custodian, but ownership can be validated through independent professional review. Fraud requires coordinated misrepresentation by multiple licensed professionals.

Examples

· Private company shares
· Revenue participation agreements
· Private loans
· Certain intellectual property rights

Required verification

Legal opinion letters, auditor confirmations, contractual review, counterparty acknowledgement.

Economic bonding (α)6 – 8%

Professional liability + multi-party verification + contract enforceability.

Mid-strength anchor

Class IV · Physical Authentication Anchored

Existence and ownership depend primarily on physical possession and authentication. Risks include substitution and forgery.

Examples

· Fine art and rare collectibles
· Luxury watches
· Historical artifacts

Required verification

Custody confirmation, authentication certificates, insurance validation.

Economic bonding (α)8 – 12%

Authentication by recognized experts + secure storage + periodic physical inspection.

Weakest anchor

Class V · Contractual Claim Anchored

Represents a contractual right rather than direct ownership of a tangible or registered asset. No registry to check; no physical asset to inspect.

Examples

· Revenue share agreements
· Profit participation rights
· Tokenized future receivables
· Litigation finance positions

Required verification

Dual legal review, frequent monitoring.

Economic bonding (α)12 – 20%

Trust depends entirely on legal enforceability, counterparty creditworthiness, and contract clarity.

Weakest anchor

Class VI · Algorithmically / Oracle Anchored

Reserved for hybrid or derivative assets whose value depends on external data feeds rather than direct ownership. The weakest real-world anchor, treated with the highest caution.

Examples

· Commodity index derivatives
· Synthetic representations
· Data-triggered payment contracts

Required verification

Oracle reliability + contract enforcement + data source integrity reviews.

Economic bonding (α)Highest caution

Application reviewed case-by-case; supplementary safeguards required.

Cross-cutting modifiers

The class is the baseline. Modifiers adjust it dynamically.

Each Trust Class is further modified by the operational characteristics below. Modifiers tune the required verification and stake on a per-asset basis.

Jurisdiction strength

Number of independent verifiers

Insurance coverage

Encumbrance complexity

Historical issuer reputation

Monitoring frequency

Why bonding scales inversely

Stake covers what verification cannot.

A Class I asset can be independently verified against a sovereign registry. Independent verifiability is high, so the required bonded stake is low (1–2%).

A Class V contractual claim has no registry and no physical asset. Trust depends entirely on legal enforceability and counterparty quality. Bonded stake (12–20%) compensates for the higher residual risk.

The total cost of fraud — financial, legal, professional, reputational — must exceed potential gain. Bonding is one of five layers; combined with multi-party verification and public trust certificates, it makes fraud uneconomic across all realistic scenarios.

Stay close to the build

Monthly engineering, legal, and roadmap updates. No marketing filler.