ENCLAVES
Trust Score model

A 0–100 score that decomposes into the things that actually matter.

The Trust Score is dynamic, decomposable, and reproducible. It reflects measurable structural properties of the asset anchoring system and is computed from public inputs.

Formula

T = w₁L + w₂V + w₃E + w₄P + w₅R

Default weights are governance-adjustable but never change retroactively for already-issued assets.

V30%

Verification

1 − Π(1 − vᵢ)

Each vᵢ is a normalized confidence value from an independent source. The multiplicative complement rewards independence: multiple independent verifications increase V nonlinearly. Highest weight because fraud prevention rests primarily on independent confirmation.

L25%

Legality

J × S

J = Jurisdiction Strength Index (rule of law, contract enforceability, recognition of digital signatures, beneficial ownership). S = SPV Legal Binding Completeness (executed contract stack, document hash anchoring, registry filings).

E20%

Economic Bonding

min(1, Stake / RequiredStake)

RequiredStake = α(Class) × AssetValue. Capped at 1 so over-staking does not inflate trust infinitely.

P15%

Process Compliance

exp(−λΔt) × C

Δt = time since last full verification, λ = decay constant, C = compliance completeness. Trust decays if re-verification does not occur.

R10%

Reputation

1 − (Disputes / TotalIssued) × Adj

Bounded below by zero. Repeat issuers accumulate durable trust; disputed assets erode it.

Simulated scenarios

What scores actually look like.

Three illustrative assets from the whitepaper, showing how the components combine. A buyer can see exactly which components contribute to the total and where weaknesses lie.

Scenario

Dubai real estate · Class I · $10M

89/ 100
J (Jurisdiction strength)
0.85
S (SPV binding completeness)
0.95
Verification (registry + licensed)
0.8, 0.6
Stake / required
100%
Process decay
recent
Reputation
new issuer
Scenario

Precious metals in vault · Class II · $5M

82/ 100
J
0.9
S
0.9
Verification (custodian + insurance)
0.7, 0.4
Stake / required
75%
Process decay
monthly audit
Reputation
good
Scenario

Private revenue share · Class V · $2M

72/ 100
J
0.8
S
0.9
Verification (legal + auditor)
0.5, 0.4
Stake / required
67%
Process decay
quarterly
Reputation
moderate
Why this stays usable

Trust models fail in four directions.

  • · Too high — adoption stalls.
  • · Too low — fraud becomes profitable.
  • · Too opaque — users ignore the score.
  • · Too volatile — markets panic on small shifts.
  • ENCLAVES counters with gradual time-decay, predictable staking thresholds, transparent formula publication, and per-asset risk calibration. Parameters change only through a governed process with simulation impact analysis, public comment, and time-delayed activation.

Stay close to the build

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