Rawer Research Methodology

Introduction

Rawer's research is only useful if readers can see how it was produced. Every report, profile, comparison and ranking follows the rules on this page. When a page departs from them, it says so.

What Rawer covers

• ▸ Tokenized treasuries, money-market funds and other government-debt products
• ▸ Private and structured credit issued or financed on-chain
• ▸ Tokenization platforms, issuers and infrastructure providers
• ▸ Stablecoins and tokenized deposits, as they relate to on-chain settlement
• ▸ Regulation and legal structures affecting tokenized assets

Rawer does not cover token price speculation or trading signals.

Source hierarchy

Sources are ranked by how directly they can establish a fact. Source types are used differently depending on the claim being evaluated.

1. Tier 1

   Primary sources

   • ▸ Company documentation
   • ▸ Regulatory filings and registers
   • ▸ Official datasets
   • ▸ Protocol documentation and contracts

   used for: Required for any factual claim about an entity: structure, products, licences, networks.

2. Tier 2

   Secondary sources

   • ▸ Reputable research organizations
   • ▸ Established financial publications
   • ▸ Industry databases

   used for: Used for market context, cross-checks and aggregate figures — never as the only support for a claim about one entity when a primary source exists.

3. Tier 3

   Community and contextual sources

   • ▸ Forums
   • ▸ Social networks
   • ▸ Community discussions

   used for: Used only to identify questions worth investigating or to describe sentiment. Never cited as evidence for a fact.

Data collection process

1. 01Identify the claim to be established and the minimum source tier it needs.
2. 02Collect the primary source and record the retrieval date.
3. 03Cross-check against at least one independent source where one exists.
4. 04Record the value with its citation; unverifiable values are left blank, not estimated.
5. 05A second analyst reviews facts, labels and citations before publication.

Where a page uses Rawer's own demo or modelled figures, each figure is marked illustrative and never presented as market data.

How projects are categorized

Each project is assigned one primary category based on what it does for its main customer, plus descriptive fields for asset types, business model, networks and geography.

Asset issuer

Issues its own tokenized products and stands behind them.

Credit protocol

Runs lending or credit pools where third parties originate or allocate.

Tokenization infrastructure

Provides software, registry or compliance rails other issuers use.

Categories reflect a project's main activity; many projects touch more than one. See the project directory.

How comparisons are conducted

• ▸ State the shared category both entities belong to before comparing them.
• ▸ Compare both under identical dimensions — use cases, asset types, customers, technology, business model, positioning.
• ▸ Note the difference on each dimension explicitly, rather than writing two separate descriptions.
• ▸ Do not force one entity to win every dimension; conclude with which users each may suit.

How rankings are created

Every Rawer ranking contains six components:

Category

A clearly defined market segment, stated before any entity is listed.

Entities

The companies or protocols included, with explicit inclusion criteria.

Comparable attributes

The same fixed attributes applied to every entity.

Evidence

A cited source for every factual attribute value.

Methodology

The criteria, rating levels and how order is derived.

Context-specific recommendations

Which entity fits which use case — not a single universal winner.

The fixed attributes currently used for platform rankings are: Primary use case, Supported asset types, Target customer, Geographic coverage, Institutional focus, Blockchain support, Compliance approach.

Rawer does not publish arbitrary numeric scores. Unless a page documents an explicit scoring formula, ratings are qualitative on three levels — Strong Moderate Limited — and the reasoning for order is written out. No entity pays for inclusion. See rankings.

How Rawer separates facts from analysis

Statements are labelled by kind so readers can weigh them differently:

fact

A verifiable statement tied to a numbered source.

interpretation

Rawer's reading of sourced facts — what they imply.

rawer analysis

Editorial judgment or opinion; reasonable analysts may disagree.

illustrative

Demo or modelled data, not real market figures.

Update policy

• ▸ Every page shows a publication date and a last-updated date.
• ▸ Rankings and project profiles are reviewed at least quarterly.
• ▸ Pages are also reviewed when a material licence, product or structure change is disclosed.
• ▸ Each source shows the date it was retrieved.

Corrections policy

Errors are corrected on the page with a dated correction note describing what changed, and the last-updated date is revised. Material errors are never silently edited. A correction request should include the page link and a source supporting the change.

Conflicts of interest

• ▸ No company pays for coverage, inclusion or ranking position.
• ▸ Companies do not review content before publication.
• ▸ Analysts disclose holdings in any asset they cover; undisclosed conflicts lead to retraction.
• ▸ Any future commercial relationship will be disclosed on every affected page.

Limitations

• ▸ Rawer relies on public information; private terms and unpublished data are outside our view.
• ▸ Qualitative ratings involve judgment and can differ from other analysts' conclusions.
• ▸ Coverage is selective — absence from a ranking is not a negative judgment.
• ▸ The market changes quickly; facts may be out of date between reviews.
• ▸ Nothing Rawer publishes is investment, legal or tax advice.

Contact and feedback

Send corrections, source suggestions or methodology feedback to editors@rawer.com.Learn more about Rawer.