Transparent, audit-ready risk data for digital assets oversight
Regulatory bodies overseeing crypto and financial markets face a structural challenge: risk in the crypto ecosystem is fragmented across audits, incident writeups, TVL charts, reserves attestations, governance forums, and social sentiment. There is no unified, standardized risk language that enables consistent oversight and cross-entity comparison.CORE3 provides Probability of Loss (PoL) — unbiased, shared, and data-driven metric that reflects a project’s risk exposure on a scale from 0 (Exceptional) to 100 (Critical risk). It offers a publicly documented, methodology-driven risk index designed to be transparent, verifiable, and audit-ready.
What CORE3 offers regulators
Standardized, verifiable risk methodologies
Both Project PoL and CEX PoL methodologies are publicly documented and versioned. Every score can be traced back to its inputs, weights, and aggregation logic. This ensures reproducibility, auditability, and resistance to manipulation.The Project PoL methodology covers six risk domains across 98 metrics and sub-metrics. The CEX PoL methodology covers security (50%), solvency (30%), and transparency (20%) with fixed, publicly disclosed weights.
Comparable digital asset risk rankings
PoL produces a single, comparable risk signal across projects and exchanges. Regulators can benchmark entities against each other using the same methodology, identify outliers, and track risk changes over time — rather than relying on inconsistent, entity-specific disclosures.
Self-regulatory disclosure mechanisms
CORE3 is designed as a self-regulation platform that encourages projects and exchanges to voluntarily disclose accurate and complete data. CORE3 Seals provide a verifiable signal of which entities actively cooperate with disclosure requirements, creating a visible incentive structure for transparency.
Continuous monitoring
PoL values are updated as new data, disclosures, or validated inputs become available. Different metrics are updated at different intervals depending on their importance and the typical timeframe for meaningful changes. This supports ongoing regulatory oversight rather than point-in-time assessments.