Not a quote from a desk. Not a number from a model you cannot see. Five factors, five weights, one curve, one term multiplier. Every input is published per asset every block. Recompute it yourself.
| factor | inputs | weight | what moves it |
|---|---|---|---|
| f1 custodian | attestation cadence, missed attestations 180d, jurisdiction tier, audit age | 0.30 | a missed attestation adds ~8 points for 30 days |
| f2 liquidity | 30-day on-chain depth at 2% impact vs typical cover notional | 0.20 | thin books score high; deep books near zero |
| f3 peg history | days since last 0.97 breach, breach count 180d, mean recovery time | 0.20 | a breach adds points that decay over 90 days |
| f4 oracle | source count, staleness p95, divergence p95 vs secondaries | 0.15 | single-source feeds start at 60 on this factor |
| f5 underlying | halt history 2y, listing venue tier, market cap bucket | 0.15 | small caps and frequent halts score high |
| score band | annualised premium | meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 0 – 20 | 0.6% | tier-1 custodian, deep liquidity, clean peg, multi-source oracle |
| 21 – 40 | 1.4% | one soft spot |
| 41 – 60 | 3.2% | two soft spots or one recent event |
| 61 – 80 | 7.5% | meaningful plumbing risk; capacity limited |
| 81 – 100 | not offered | no premium makes this a good trade for the pool |
A continuous curve invites tuning; every basis point becomes an argument. Bands are blunt on purpose. A score of 41 pays the same as 60. If you think that is unfair to the 41, buy at 40: the inputs are public and you can see what would move the score.
Scores are rounded against the buyer, always. The pool is the party that cannot walk away from a bad price.
Weights and bands change only by governance vote with a 30-day notice, and never for active covers.