Asset Ratings

CRC Securities Framework Asset Ratings

This page shows the latest securities framework asset ratings published by the Crypto Rating Council, LLC ("CRC"). These ratings are the sole and independent work product of the CRC. The ratings and other CRC work product are not endorsed by any asset development team or foundation, any regulator, or any other third party. Scores are subject to change at any time without notice.
See other important information below and on our FAQs page.

Algorand
ALGO
·
2.00
  • Sale of the token or token interests after the system had existing utility
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
  • Decentralized development efforts
Augur
REP
·
3.75
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Decentralized development and usage
Bitcoin
BTC
·
1.00
  • Absence of a marketed token sale and corresponding marketing efforts
  • Decentralized development and usage
  • Anonymity of the Project Team
Chainlink
LINK
·
2.00
  • Sale of the token or token interests after the system had existing utility
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
  • Decentralized development and usage
Dai
DAI
·
1.00
  • Stablecoin features (pegged value)
  • Sale of the token or token interests after the system had existing utility
Decentraland
MANA
·
3.75
  • Sale of tokens or token interests prior to the existence of token utility
  • Decentralized development and usage
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
EOS
EOS
·
3.75
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Raised funds in excess of what would reasonably be necessary for development of the platform
Ethereum
ETH
·
2.00
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
  • Decentralized development and usage
FOAM
FOAM
·
3.75
  • Sale of tokens or token interests prior to the existence of token utility
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Ongoing development of additional features
Hedera Hashgraph
HBAR
·
3.75
  • Decentralized development efforts
  • Usage of securities-like language
  • Ongoing development of additional features
Litecoin
LTC
·
1.00
  • Absence of a marketed token sale and corresponding marketing efforts
  • Decentralized development and usage
Loom Network
LOOM
·
3.75
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Decentralized development and usage
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
Maker
MKR
·
4.50
  • Usage of securities-like language
  • Marketing of the token suggesting an opportunity to earn profits
  • Burning features
Monero
XMR
·
1.00
  • Absence of a marketed token sale and corresponding marketing efforts
  • Decentralized development and usage
Numeraire
NMR
·
2.00
  • Absence of a marketed token sale and corresponding marketing efforts
  • Tokens airdropped to existing users of the beta version of the system and distributed after the platform already had existing utility
Polymath
POLY
·
4.50
  • Sale of tokens or token interests prior to the existence of token utility
  • Limited amount of current utility
  • Limited decentralized development and usage of the platform
Stellar
XLM
·
3.75
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Decentralized usage
Tezos
XTZ
·
3.75
  • Sale of tokens or token interests prior to the existence of token utility
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Decentralized development efforts
XRP
XRP
·
4.00
  • Usage of securities-like language
  • Sale of tokens or token interests prior to the existence of token utility
  • Marketing of the token suggesting an opportunity to earn profits
  • Decentralized development and usage
Zcash
ZEC
·
2.00
  • Current functionality of the platform
  • Absence of investment-like language or marketing
  • Decentralized development efforts

How to read the score:
     1. A score of 1 means the Council’s analysis found that an asset has few or no characteristics consistent with treatment as a security.
     2. A score of 5 means the Council’s analysis found that an asset has many characteristics strongly consistent with treatment as a security.
     3. Scores in between reflect the relative strength and presence of characteristics relevant to the Council’s framework.

The scores reflect an independent analysis by the Crypto Rating Council, LLC and is intended as a tool to help members evaluate and weigh factors that may be relevant to the potential classification of a digital asset under federal securities laws. The score does not reflect a legal conclusion and is no indication of qualitative value of an asset or suitability for investment or any other purpose

The CRC’s analytical framework is based on relevant law and statements from SEC Staff relating to digital assets, including the SEC’s “Framework for Investment Contract of Digital Assets.” Neither the scores nor our framework constitute an exhaustive treatment of the legal and regulatory issues relevant to conducting an analysis of whether a product is a security. The CRC’s framework (including the factors considered and the weighting of those factors) has not been endorsed by the SEC or any other governmental authority. Classification of a digital asset as a security is a fact and circumstances determination and no one factor is necessarily dispositive as to whether an asset would be deemed a security. A quantitative ranking may not necessarily be reflective of the likelihood of classification as a security, and only should be considered together with all relevant facts and circumstances. Moreover, the analysis concerning digital assets as securities may evolve over time the nature of digital assets, applicable precedent and SEC statements and interpretations change and evolve.

The analysis underpinning each score published here is based on a limited review of factual information publicly available or otherwise made available to the CRC. Due to the quantity of information (including white papers, web pages, social media posts, videos, seminars, conferences, marketing materials and other forms of communication) and limitation of their availability, not all potentially relevant factual information has necessarily been reviewed and no independent investigation or analysis, apart from the CRC’s own efforts, has been taken to confirm information on which this analysis is based. We do not assume any responsibility for the completeness of the information upon which our analysis and score is based. It is possible that if additional facts where known or assumed or understood facts prove to be incorrect, the analysis and resulting score would be materially different.