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.
T = w₁L + w₂V + w₃E + w₄P + w₅R
Default weights are governance-adjustable but never change retroactively for already-issued assets.
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.
Legality
J × SJ = Jurisdiction Strength Index (rule of law, contract enforceability, recognition of digital signatures and token-conveyed ownership). S = SPV Legal Binding Completeness (executed contract stack, document hash anchoring, registry filings).
Economic Bonding
min(1, Stake / RequiredStake)RequiredStake = α(Class) × AssetValue. Capped at 1 so over-staking does not inflate trust infinitely.
Process Compliance
exp(−λΔt) × CΔt = time since last full verification, λ = decay constant, C = compliance completeness. Trust decays if re-verification does not occur.
Reputation
1 − (Disputes / TotalIssued) × AdjBounded below by zero. Repeat issuers accumulate durable trust; disputed assets erode it.
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.
Dubai real estate · Class I · $10M
- 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
Precious metals in vault · Class II · $5M
- J
- 0.9
- S
- 0.9
- Verification (custodian + insurance)
- 0.7, 0.4
- Stake / required
- 75%
- Process decay
- monthly audit
- Reputation
- good
Private revenue share · Class V · $2M
- J
- 0.8
- S
- 0.9
- Verification (legal + auditor)
- 0.5, 0.4
- Stake / required
- 67%
- Process decay
- quarterly
- Reputation
- moderate
Trust is not the same as investment risk.
The Trust Score asks whether ownership is real and enforceable. It does not measure the risk of holding the asset. ENCLAVES publishes a second, independent measure — the Asset Risk Rating — so the two form orthogonal axes. A Class I government bond and a Class I frontier-market property can both score near 90 on trust while carrying very different prospects of loss.
ENCLAVES adopts the EU PRIIPs Summary Risk Indicator rather than a bespoke scale — a 1-to-7 rating combining market and credit risk, where 1 is lowest and 7 is highest. Institutions and regulators already read it on fund and structured-product disclosures, so the rating carries a defensible methodology and immediate credibility.
The rating is deliberately kept out of the bonding formula — bonding deters misconduct, not market loss — and it can drive on-chain eligibility and concentration limits through the same ERC-3643 compliance module that governs every transfer. It is a structured characterization, not investment advice.
The factors a credit committee or fund risk function underwrites, computed from declared and verified inputs together with market data — as transparent and reproducible as the Trust Score.
- Credit & counterparty
- Default probability of the obligor; standing of custodians
- Market & price
- Volatility and sensitivity to rates, commodities, indices
- Liquidity
- Time and cost to liquidate; secondary-market depth
- Concentration
- Single-asset vs diversified; geographic / sector exposure
- Currency & FX
- Mismatch with the settlement stablecoin denomination
- Income stability
- Predictability and durability of distributions
- Valuation uncertainty
- Marked, appraised, or realized — and how stale
- Settlement-medium
- Reserve and peg exposure of the settlement stablecoin
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.