How the Conviction Index is built.
A transparent, independently reproducible rating system for digital assets, tokens, and protocols. Six public data sources. Five weighted subscores. Quarterly refresh. Issuers cannot pay to improve their grade — methodology and source data are published in full.
Guiding Principles.
The Conviction Index exists to answer a single question for institutional allocators: which digital assets actually earn institutional conviction — and which collapse under serious due diligence?
- Public records only. Every input sourced from onchain data (Dune, Etherscan, Solscan, etc.), audited reserve attestations, SEC filings, PACER federal court records, exchange listing/delisting data, or Rise Capital's proprietary research framework.
- Issuers cannot pay. No rated asset issuer or protocol has paid, can pay, or has been offered the opportunity to pay for inclusion, exclusion, or modification of their grade.
- Quarterly refresh. Grades update every 90 days; material onchain events trigger interim updates. Material changes timestamped.
- Subscore transparency. Every grade decomposes into five public subscores.
- Right of correction. Issuers may submit documented corrections via published Appeals process.
The Six Data Sources.
The Index is constructed from six independent public-record sources. No single source can move a grade by more than 35%.
Onchain Data (Dune, Etherscan, Solscan)
Block-level onchain metrics: holder distribution, transaction volume, validator concentration, contract activity. Cross-chain via Dune Analytics queries.
Audited Reserve Attestations
Stablecoin reserve attestations from Big-Four auditors. Protocol-treasury reports. Critical for stablecoin and centralized-issuer rating.
SEC Filings (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K)
Public-company filings for Coinbase, Robinhood, Galaxy Digital, MicroStrategy, and ETF issuers. Critical for regulated-issuer rating.
PACER Federal Court Filings
Bankruptcy proceedings (FTX, Celsius, BlockFi, Voyager), SEC enforcement actions, criminal proceedings (SBF, Mashinsky, Do Kwon). Critical for risk-band classification.
Exchange Listing / Delisting Data
Regulated-exchange listing posture (Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini) as a regulatory-clarity signal. Delisting events as material adverse signals.
Rise Capital Research Framework
Proprietary onchain + offchain research methodology. Asset thesis documentation. Methodology published.
The Five Subscores.
Protocol Security
Code audit history, exploit and hack history, bug-bounty maturity, validator-network economic security, time-tested operational record. Multi-decade track records (Bitcoin, Ethereum) receive premium scoring. Protocols with documented exploit history receive penalty unless mitigated.
Governance Decentralization
Token distribution analysis, governance participation rates, validator concentration, founder / team token unlock schedules, multi-sig and admin-key custody. Centralized issuers (USDC, exchange tokens) receive lower decentralization subscores by structural design.
Liquidity
Daily trading volume across CEX and DEX venues, exchange listing breadth, market-depth metrics, bid-ask spreads, stablecoin convertibility. Critical for position-sizing decisions.
Adoption & Utility
Actual onchain usage metrics: active addresses, transaction count, protocol fee revenue, developer activity (GitHub commits, contract deployments), institutional integrations. Distinguishes utility from speculation.
Regulatory Posture
SEC enforcement history, jurisdictional registration status, exchange-listing posture by regulated venues, recent regulatory actions or settlements. Material adverse regulatory events produce immediate penalty.
Weighting & Scoring.
Why these weights? Protocol Security is heaviest because protocol failures are catastrophic for institutional allocations. Regulatory Posture and Adoption & Utility tie for second because they directly determine whether an asset survives the next regulatory cycle and whether it has structural demand. Governance Decentralization and Liquidity complete the composite — both critical for institutional position-sizing decisions.