The Tokenization Assurance Framework sits between issuers, investors, regulators, custodians and venues as an independent layer. It does not ask whether a token was compliant on the day it was issued. It asks whether the asset should have been tokenised at all, under what governance framework, and whether it remains safe to hold.
Cabier does not issue, underwrite, appraise, custody, market or distribute tokenised assets, and does not provide investment advice. TAF scores are governance and disclosure assessments — not credit ratings, valuations, fairness opinions or investment recommendations.
Losses in tokenised and structured real-world assets have overwhelmingly followed governance, liquidity, valuation and disclosure failure — conditions that pre-date the token and outlast it. Contract audits do not reach them.
Existing tokenisation compliance work answers whether an instrument met securities requirements at issuance. It does not answer whether the asset should have been tokenised, or whether it remains safe to hold.
The question of whether an asset was a suitable candidate for tokenisation at all is asked by the sponsor, whose interest is issuance, and by nobody with an obligation to holders.
Holders rely on the issuer's own disclosure. There is no continuing, independent position they can read alongside it.
Most tokenisation review begins at layer two. Investor harm begins at layer one.
Layer 1
Asset
The real-world asset, its title, structure, cash flow and encumbrances — the part that fails first and is examined last.
Layer 2
Tokenisation
The instrument, register, transfer restrictions and custody arrangements that carry the interest.
Layer 3
Assurance
Independent assessment of readiness and holder protection, refreshed rather than issued once.
Layer 4
Certificate
A scoped, dated assurance output that names what was examined, what was not, and on what basis.
Fifteen categories across legal ownership, structure, valuation, liquidity, suitability, classification, financial-crime controls and custody. Answers whether the asset was a candidate for tokenisation in the first place.
Open TRSNine categories across redemption, lock-up, secondary market, insolvency treatment, independent trustee, reporting, distributions, holder voting and valuation independence. Answers what holders actually have.
Open IPSPhase 1 is live. Continuous monitoring, early warning and scenario simulation are on the published roadmap and are not presented as current capability.
Tokenization Readiness Score (TRS)
A fifteen-category assessment of whether the asset was a suitable candidate for tokenisation, and under what governance framework.
Live — Phase 1
Investor Protection Score (IPS)
A nine-category assessment of the exit, information and recourse rights actually available to holders.
Live — Phase 1
Digital Assurance Certificate
The client-facing output: scope, period, method, limitations and the two scored positions, dated and re-issued on cadence.
Live — Phase 1
Early Warning Dashboard
Deterioration signals across governance, liquidity, valuation and disclosure, surfaced before an issuer discloses them.
Roadmap
Continuous Monitoring Engine
Subscription monitoring of certified assets against operational, litigation and regulatory signal, with the certificate position updated rather than reprinted.
Roadmap
Failure Simulator
Scenario stress over redemption pressure, valuation shock, sponsor insolvency and secondary-market absence.
Roadmap
Phase 1
Foundation
Readiness rubric, protection rubric and certificate format in place; assessment run as a hybrid manual and structured workflow with pilot issuers.
Phase 2
Scoring automation
Protection scoring automated; Early Warning Dashboard MVP; first litigation, news and regulatory feeds bound to certified assets.
Phase 3
Continuous monitoring
Subscription monitoring engine live; operational resilience position integrated into the certificate.
Phase 4
Scenario simulation
Failure simulator across redemption, valuation, sponsor-insolvency and liquidity-absence scenarios; framework published as a named standard.
Scope, evidence access and re-assessment cadence are set per engagement. Commercial terms are quoted against scope. Related surfaces: Settlement Assurance Board, ORS methodology.
Start a scoping conversation