OCB Reference/Rating
What is an RWA quality rating, and how is a tokenized asset rated?
An RWA quality rating measures how sound a tokenized real-world asset is from what can be verified onchain and in its disclosures — across four dimensions, each scored 0–25 for a composite of 0–100. Here is exactly what it measures, and how real funds score right now.
OnChain Benchmark · Reference · figures update live
An RWA quality rating measures how sound a tokenized real-world asset is, built from what can be independently verified onchain and in the issuer's disclosures — not from the issuer's own marketing. It scores four things, each on a 0–25 scale that sums to a 0–100 composite: disclosure quality (is the backing documented and attested?), redemption liquidity (can you actually get out, with the issuer and onchain?), structural trust (regulatory standing, custody, contract control), and holder concentration (is ownership broad, or held by a handful of wallets?). A higher composite means more of what matters is verifiable and sound. Because these assets settle on public ledgers, most of it is directly measurable.
"It's a tokenized treasury" — or gold, or a money-market fund, or a stock — tells you almost nothing about whether that particular token is sound. Two tokens backed by the same underlying asset can differ sharply in how well they're disclosed, how easily you can redeem them, how they're structured and custodied, and who actually holds them. An RWA quality rating exists to make those differences comparable — one number, reproducible from a public methodology, that says how much of an asset's soundness is actually verifiable.
What does an RWA quality rating actually measure?
Four dimensions, each scored 0–25, summing to a 0–100 composite. Every dimension answers a question a careful holder would ask anyway:
- Disclosure quality
- Is the backing documented, attested, and consistent over time, or are you taking the issuer's word for it?
- Redemption liquidity
- Can you actually exit — both directly with the issuer and through onchain venues — and how deep is that path?
- Structural trust
- The regulatory standing, the legal and custody structure, and who controls the contract.
- Holder concentration
- Whether ownership is broadly distributed or sits in a few wallets, which changes how the asset behaves under stress.
A fund that is well-documented, redeemable, properly structured, and widely held rates higher than one that isn't — and each of those is measurable onchain.
How do the scores band — what counts as a good rating?
The 0–100 composite bands into four tiers. Under the RWA Quality rubric, a composite of 85 or above is Verified, 65–84 is Rated, 45–64 is Limited, and below 45 is Unverifiable. The bands are stable, published methodology — the point is that "sound" stops being an opinion and becomes a threshold you can check. The full rubric, sub-signals, and per-asset-class weights are documented and reproducible on the methodology page.
How do real tokenized funds score right now?
Here is the rating applied to real funds, read live from current data — not an example, the actual scores as they stand today:
Current quality scores · read live
Why can this be measured onchain when a credit rating can't?
A traditional rating leans on private disclosures and analyst judgment. A tokenized asset lives on a public ledger: its holders, its supply across chains, its redemption venues, and its onchain activity are all directly observable. That means most of an RWA quality rating is computed from evidence rather than asserted — and it updates as the asset changes, instead of being a stale letter grade. Where something genuinely can't be read onchain (a permissioned venue, say), a rating discloses that limit rather than papering over it.
- What is an RWA quality rating?
- An RWA quality rating measures how sound a tokenized real-world asset is, using what can be independently verified onchain and in the issuer's disclosures. It scores four dimensions — disclosure quality, redemption liquidity, structural trust, and holder concentration — each 0–25, summing to a 0–100 composite. A higher composite means more of the asset's soundness is actually verifiable.
- How is a tokenized asset rated?
- It is scored on four dimensions, each 0–25: disclosure quality (is the backing documented and attested?), redemption liquidity (can you exit, with the issuer and onchain?), structural trust (regulatory standing, custody, contract control), and holder concentration (is ownership broad or concentrated?). The four sum to a 0–100 composite, reproducible from a public methodology.
- What do the rating bands mean?
- Under the RWA Quality rubric, a 0–100 composite bands as Verified (85 or above), Rated (65–84), Limited (45–64), and Unverifiable (below 45). The thresholds are fixed, published methodology, so a rating is a checkable threshold rather than an opinion.
- Is there a quality rating or trust score for tokenized RWAs?
- Yes. Tokenized real-world assets can be scored with an RWA quality rating: a 0–100 composite across four dimensions (disclosure quality, redemption liquidity, structural trust, holder concentration), computed largely from onchain evidence and updated as the asset changes.
- How is an RWA quality rating different from a credit rating?
- A credit rating leans on private disclosures and analyst judgment and is issued as a periodic letter grade. An RWA quality rating is computed largely from public onchain evidence — holders, supply, redemption venues, activity — so it is reproducible and updates as the asset changes. Where something cannot be read onchain, the rating discloses that limit rather than assuming it.
- Can a tokenized asset's quality really be measured?
- Most of it, yes. Because tokenized assets settle on public ledgers, their holder distribution, cross-chain supply, redemption paths, and activity are directly observable, so much of a quality rating is computed from evidence rather than asserted. The parts that aren't onchain-readable are disclosed as limits rather than hidden.
Last reviewed Sep 4, 2026 · figures read live