Redemption is the test
Four of the five verification questions are about setup. The last two — how redemption works, and who is liable if it fails — are where most token stories actually end.
Observation
Return to the coat-check counter. The ticket worked all evening: someone accepted the coat, someone kept it safe, the number matched. Now it is closing time, and you hand the ticket back. This is the moment the whole arrangement was for — and the moment most token analysis never examines.
The FORA-01 standard asks two closing-time questions:
🔑 How does redemption actually work? Eligibility (who is allowed to redeem), minimums (how much it takes), fees (what it costs), KYC (what identity proof is demanded), settlement (how long it takes and in what form), and whether the token burns or locks when redeemed. Each of these is a place where a clean story can quietly break. A redemption minimum of 1,000 tokens, for instance, means the small holder's "backed" token is backed in a way they can never touch.
⚖️ Who is liable if redemption fails? Not a wallet address. Not a Telegram admin. Not a DAO label. A legally accountable entity, in a real jurisdiction, with a name that can appear in a filing. If no such entity exists, then the redemption promise is enforced by nothing — and "backed" describes a hope, not an arrangement.
Interpretation
Notice the asymmetry: the first three questions (what is owned, who holds it, how reserves are checked) describe the setup. The last two describe the exit. Setups are easy to announce; exits are where arrangements prove themselves. Almost every token failure that mattered — the ones where ordinary holders lost real money — was a failure at closing time, not at the coat check.
This is also why the dossiers treat the five questions in order. A token can score well on the first three and still leave the holder with no path back to the underlying value. The order forces the uncomfortable questions last, where they cannot be skipped.
What would change this view
A published redemption flow with named eligibility, real minimums, stated fees, and settlement terms — plus a legal entity standing behind it. Until those exist as primary documents, the closing-time questions stay open, and the verdicts say so honestly.
The coat-check framework this builds on is here. The five questions in full: here.