[Audits]

Public Audits

17 audits

LMA1 (Lemonaid-Crowdinvesting) RWA Token Audit

LMA1 is a direct subordinated LemonAid bond on Polygon with no SPV and no oracle: a simple, honest structure, but the issuer's equity is 2.8% of assets and €2.9M falls due in January 2027. Final score 57 out of 100, grade BB.

ISD (Innovation Smart District) RWA Token Audit

ISD is backed by $115.9M of Panamanian land, yet holders get no right to it, no guaranteed cash flow and no exit: 60% of sale proceeds stays with the issuer and a related board decides payouts. Final score 30 out of 100, grade CCC.

HES (Hacken Equity Share) Token Audit

HES sells 0.1% of a profitable company, Hacken OÜ, but the share register shows neither token holders nor a nominee. The slot price was set by the HAI utility token, and none of the three promised exits has opened in 2.5 years. Final score 37 out of 100, grade CCC.

HECTARE (Web3Eco) RWA Token Audit

Behind HECTARE is a real paulownia plantation in the Fergana Valley: a state lease, an operator 51% owned by the issuer, 150,000+ trees. But the revenue-sharing agreement is unpublished, the price of a hectare depends on ticket size (up to +68%), and there is no exit from the stake until 2052. Final score 47 out of 100, grade CCC.

XAUT (Tether Gold) RWA Token Audit

Every XAUt is backed by an ounce of LGD gold, and on each quarterly date the BDO attestation matches down to a hundredth of an ounce. But the custodian is affiliated and unnamed, a Tether multisig can burn a blocked balance with no timelock, and supply already runs 137,254 XAUt above the confirmed reserve. Final score 61 out of 100, grade BBB.

GromaCoin ($GRO) Token Audit

GromaCoin sits on a real REIT with SEC filings and Boston apartments, yet the token scored 29 out of 100, grade D: the issuer's own numbers disagree across sources, the manager sets the NAV, and the Base contract does not implement the promised ERC-3643.

BCAP (Blockchain Capital Token) Security Token Audit

The first tokenized venture fund: a regulated transfer agent in Securitize, named custodians and auditor — against a NAV the manager calculates itself. A roughly 6x rise in 12 months with no public explanation, no redemption, and a historical discount to NAV of up to 75%. Final score 40 out of 100, grade C.

CREV (Tokenized Revolut) Security Token Audit

A Swiss tracker token on pre-IPO Revolut shares: ledger-based security and bankruptcy remoteness through a trust, against an undisclosed SPV, 20% + 5% fees at SPV level and no real exit before 2029. Preliminary score 32 out of 100, grade C.

MANTRA ($MANTRA, formerly $OM) Tokenomics Audit

A 16% annual emission with zero absorption, burned coins back in circulation after an exploit, $1.5B of announced tokenization against $370.9K actually issued on-chain. Rating CC, 22 out of 100.

Rating methodology

How we assess the link between product and token

PRODUCTUsers · volume · revenue
TPLToken Product Linkage
TOKENPrice · holders · demand
StrongNo linkage

Product growth creates demand and economic value for the token.

  • Value capture

    Does product revenue reach the token?

  • Token necessity

    Is it necessary in the core loop or optional?

  • Demand elasticity

    Does activity growth increase token demand?

  • Supply sinks

    Do burns and locks grow with usage?

  • On-chain proof

    Are the flows verifiable rather than assumed?

  • Rule durability

    How difficult is it to turn the linkage off?

Token Product Linkage is the core of the assessment. We also analyse tokenomics resilience, fundamentals, governance and control, security, and market structure; the result combines a score, colour rating, and key risks.

Every audit above is scored this way.

We show what we measure and why; weights and formulas remain part of our internal methodology.

Book a consultation