The Investment Committee problem
Digital credit exposure is being allocated without a reproducible risk framework. When positions fail, investment committees cannot reconstruct why the exposure was approved, under which criteria, or against which version of a model. That is not a data problem. It is a methodology failure.
Digital credit spans structurally different instruments — BTC collateral lending, stablecoins, infrastructure, and tokenised real-world assets. Each carries distinct counterparty risk, custody structure, and regulatory exposure.
No standardised framework exists to evaluate them within a single, comparable system. Without a versioned and reproducible methodology, every allocation decision becomes non-auditable.
Why internal models fail
1. Analyst-dependent outputs. Two analysts reviewing the same provider produce different results. Weights differ. Thresholds differ. Judgement differs. Outputs are analyst-dependent, not framework-dependent. The score cannot be separated from its author — and cannot be independently challenged.
2. No version control. The model used to approve a position six months ago cannot be reconstructed. Criteria evolve. Thresholds shift. Assumptions change. The original decision has no fixed reference point. There is no audit trail — only overwritten logic.
3. No independent verification. Internal scores can only be validated by the firm that produced them. A counterparty cannot verify them. A regulator cannot verify them. A successor Investment Committee (IC) cannot verify them without trusting the original analyst. That is acceptable for opinion. It is not acceptable for capital allocation.
ACI computes risk. You allocate capital.
ACI produces deterministic, versioned, evidence-backed risk indicators. Inputs are user-defined, methodology is published, and computation is identical across every run. Identical inputs produce identical outputs — byte-for-byte. ACI does not make allocation decisions. It produces the quantitative input those decisions rely on.
Structural independence. ACI has no economic exposure to any scored entity. No payments from providers, issuers, or platforms. No positions held by ACI or its employees. Conflicts policy is version-controlled and enforceable. ACI is not a counterparty, custodian, or execution venue. It is a measurement system, not a market participant. Full conflicts policy and governance structure available in methodology →
Proof pillars
No conflicts of interest
ACI Risk Indicators are produced without compensation from any scored entity. No economic incentives are tied to scoring outcomes. Policy documentation and controls available in methodology →
Deterministic computation
No generated narrative. No opaque logic. The ACI Framework v1.0 is published and version-controlled. Fields with confidence below 0.70 are substituted with worst-case values prior to aggregation. Outputs are strictly reproducible. Identical inputs yield identical results — byte-for-byte. Full computation logic and version history available in methodology →
Independent verification
Every ACI Risk Indicator is cryptographically anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain. Any third party — counterparty, regulator, or successor IC — can verify integrity of the output, timestamp of publication, and absence of tampering. Verification does not require trusting ACI. Verification process and implementation details available in methodology →
Full market coverage
A partial framework produces false confidence. ACI covers the full surface of digital credit: BTC collateral lending, stablecoins (CeFi and DeFi), infrastructure (mining and validation), market-neutral strategies, venture, tokenised real-world assets, and volatility. Each module operates with its own criteria, evidence network, and version history. Full module architecture and coverage details available in methodology →
What this means
ACI produces risk indicators that are deterministic, versioned, evidence-backed, and independently verifiable. That makes them a defensible input into capital allocation. Not an opinion. Not a black box. Not a dependency on trust.
ACI computes risk. You decide how to allocate capital.