Fund Transparency

Assesses the assurance around the tokenized asset itself, along three lines: whether an independent auditor covers the fund, whether a fund administrator strikes and reports NAV, and how frequently NAV and holdings are reported. It is the fund analogue of Reserves Transparency, framed around fund-level assurance rather than stablecoin proof-of-reserves. Reporting frequency also surfaces reconciliation risk: the more frequent and granular the independent reporting, the sooner any drift between tokens outstanding and units actually held becomes visible.

Tier	Reasoning	Evidence
Independent auditor, fund administrator, frequent NAV reporting	An independent auditor over the fund, a fund administrator striking NAV, and daily or near-daily reporting together provide institutional-grade assurance and keep reconciliation drift visible. This is now the regulatory floor for registered funds rather than an aspiration.	Registered fund complexes audited by Big Four or equivalent firms, administered by a third-party administrator, with daily NAV, anchor the strong tier.
Partial assurance or a wrapper-attestation gap	The underlying fund is well-assured, but the token wrapper itself lacks independent proof of holdings, so a thin wrapper over a well-audited fund can look more transparent than it is. Alternatively, reporting is present but infrequent.	A token whose underlying fund carries auditor, administrator, and daily NAV, but whose on-chain wrapper has no standing third-party proof-of-holdings attestation, sits here: the fund is transparent, the wrapper is not.
No independent assurance or infrequent reporting	Independent verification is largely absent or reporting is too infrequent to catch drift, so a shortfall between issuance and holdings could persist undetected.	Undisclosed or self-reported reserve arrangements have repeatedly gone undetected until well after on-chain anomalies were visible to third-party monitors.