Editorial standard
How we rate
tokenization platforms.
Our methodology is fully public. Five criteria, defined weights, a transparent 1.0–5.0 scale. The criteria are open — the expert judgment behind every score is ours.
Public criteria
Every criterion and its weight is published here. No hidden factors, no opaque algorithms. You know exactly what we measure.
Proprietary interpretation
How we interpret a BaFin license vs. a Cayman Islands registration — that’s expert judgment built over years of compliance work. That part is ours.
Editorial independence
Paid listings are clearly labeled and never affect scores. No platform can buy a better rating. Period.
Scoring criteria
Five dimensions. One score.
Each platform is evaluated across five criteria. Scores are weighted and combined into a single rating from 1.0 to 5.0.
Regulatory Compliance
Compliance30%
of total
of total
The most heavily weighted criterion. We assess license type and issuing authority, AML/KYC standards, investor verification procedures, and alignment with applicable regimes — MiCA, SEC Reg D/A+, MAS, VARA, FINMA, and others.
A BaFin-regulated platform with full MiCA compliance scores significantly higher than an offshore-registered entity with minimal regulatory oversight — regardless of technology or track record.
A BaFin-regulated platform with full MiCA compliance scores significantly higher than an offshore-registered entity with minimal regulatory oversight — regardless of technology or track record.
Technology & Security
Technology25%
of total
of total
We evaluate token standard (ERC-3643, ERC-1400, proprietary), smart contract audit history, custody infrastructure (self-custody, qualified custodian, MPC), and overall security posture.
Platforms using open, audited token standards with independent security audits score higher than those with proprietary, unaudited implementations.
Platforms using open, audited token standards with independent security audits score higher than those with proprietary, unaudited implementations.
Track Record
Track record20%
of total
of total
Operational history matters. We look at years in operation, number of completed issuances, total AUM tokenized, and the quality and transparency of disclosed deals.
A platform with 5+ years of institutional-grade transactions carries significantly more weight than a recently launched product — even a well-designed one.
A platform with 5+ years of institutional-grade transactions carries significantly more weight than a recently launched product — even a well-designed one.
Investor Access
Access15%
of total
of total
We assess minimum investment threshold, geographic availability, accredited vs. retail investor access, and onboarding friction.
Platforms serving a broader, more accessible investor base score higher in this criterion — though accessibility must not come at the cost of regulatory compliance.
Platforms serving a broader, more accessible investor base score higher in this criterion — though accessibility must not come at the cost of regulatory compliance.
Secondary Liquidity
Liquidity10%
of total
of total
The least-weighted criterion, but still meaningful. We consider presence of a secondary trading venue, reported trading volumes, and settlement mechanics.
Most tokenized assets remain illiquid — we do not penalize for this, but platforms with functioning secondary markets score higher.
Most tokenized assets remain illiquid — we do not penalize for this, but platforms with functioning secondary markets score higher.
Rating scale
What the scores mean.
Scores range from 1.0 to 5.0 in increments of 0.1. On the public directory, scores are presented as badges — not raw numbers — to keep the focus on quality tiers.
🏆
Top Rated
4.5 – 5.0
Segment leader. Institutional-grade compliance, proven track record, strong technology. Recommended for most issuer and investor use cases.
✅
Recommended
3.5 – 4.4
Reliable platform with solid compliance posture and operational history. Minor gaps in one or more criteria. Suitable for most projects.
📋
Notable
2.5 – 3.4
Emerging or specialized platform. May excel in a specific niche but has meaningful gaps in compliance, track record, or technology. Research required.
Review process
How a platform gets rated.
All ratings are based on publicly available information. We do not require platforms to submit data — though they may request a review or provide clarifications.
1
Research & data collection
We gather publicly available information: regulatory filings, official documentation, disclosed transaction history, published security audits, and platform terms of service. We do not rely on materials provided exclusively by the platform itself.
2
Scoring against each criterion
Each of the five criteria is scored on the 1.0–5.0 scale. Scores are applied based on the methodology described above — with expert interpretation applied to each specific regulatory context and technology stack.
3
Weighted composite score
The five criterion scores are multiplied by their respective weights and summed to produce a composite score. This score is rounded to one decimal place and mapped to the corresponding badge tier.
4
Publication & updates
Ratings are published on the platform profile page. We review and update ratings when material changes occur — new regulatory approvals, security incidents, significant changes in operational scope, or updated public disclosures.
FAQ
Common questions.
Everything you need to know about how ratings work — for platforms, issuers, and investors.
How do I get my platform listed in the directory?
Platforms are added editorially based on market relevance and public availability of information. If your platform is not yet listed, you can submit a listing request here. Basic listings are free. Verified listings with extended profiles are available as a paid option — and do not affect the editorial score.
Can a platform improve its rating?
Yes — by improving what the methodology measures. Obtaining a stronger regulatory license, publishing security audits, growing a track record, or improving investor access will all positively affect the score over time. If you want to understand specifically what’s holding your score back, our advisory team can help.
Does paying for a listing affect the rating?
No. Commercial relationships are completely separated from editorial scoring. Paid listings receive enhanced visibility and profile features — not better scores. This separation is a foundational principle of GlobalTokenize’s editorial independence.
How often are ratings updated?
Ratings are reviewed continuously. A rating is updated when there is a material change in a platform’s regulatory status, technology, disclosed track record, or public information. Minor updates may happen at any time; major re-ratings are announced on the platform profile page.
What if I disagree with a rating?
Platforms are welcome to submit factual corrections or provide additional public documentation for consideration. We review all submissions and update ratings when warranted. Disagreements based on subjective interpretation of the methodology are not grounds for revision — but substantive factual corrections always are. Contact us at editorial@globaltokenize.com.
Editorial independence notice. All ratings on GlobalTokenize are based on publicly available information and reflect the independent editorial judgment of the GlobalTokenize team. Ratings are not investment advice and should not be construed as endorsements or recommendations to invest. Paid listings and commercial partnerships are clearly labeled and have no influence on editorial scores. GlobalTokenize does not accept payment to alter, improve, or remove ratings.
Want to improve your platform’s score?
Our advisory team works directly with tokenization platforms on regulatory positioning, compliance gaps, and technology standards. Independent, compliance-first, globally aware.