What does the holder own?
Title, redemption claim, fractional ownership, reserve exposure — or just narrative?
Home / Methodology
FORA-01 · Asset claim verification protocol
How we verify a claim.
A claim is not strengthened by repetition. It is strengthened by independent corroboration.
The five questions
What a token actually represents.
Every asset claim we publish must answer these. A blockchain proves the ticket exists; our job is to determine whether there is a coat behind the counter.
Who holds the underlying?
There must be an identifiable custodian or entity — not a wallet address and a promise.
How are reserves checked?
Custodian records → inventory → third-party audit → supply reconciliation. Outstanding claims must not exceed verified reserves.
How does redemption work?
Eligibility, minimums, fees, KYC, settlement time, and whether the token burns or locks on redemption.
Who is liable if redemption fails?
A legally accountable entity in a real jurisdiction — not a DAO label or a Telegram group.
FORA-01 amendment
Native assets: when the ticket is the treasure.
The five questions assume a ticket-and-coat structure — a token that claims something standing behind it. Native L1 assets (BTC, ETH, SOL and their kin) are the asset itself: a bearer instrument with no issuer, no custodian, no reserves, no redemption, and no liable entity. Asking "who holds the underlying" of bitcoin is a category error — there is no underlying distinct from the token.
The one question that applies
What does the holder own? For a native asset the answer is verifiable from the protocol itself: the asset, outright, with no counterparty. Native-asset pages carry Q1 as VERIFIED with the protocol as evidence.
Marked N/A — structurally
No custodian, no reserves, no redemption, no liable entity — not because research is missing, but because there is nothing to find. N/A is a structural marker, never a verdict and never a gap.
Pending review
This amendment is published for FORTUNA's review. If evidence shows a "native" asset carries an issuer claim or a redemption promise, it returns to the full five-question treatment. Ambiguous cases stay on the claim-token questions until resolved.
The vocabulary
Four verdicts. Stated plainly.
Classification describes what the evidence says. Confidence describes how sure we are. Confidence can never upgrade a classification.
✅ VerifiedIndependent sources corroborate the claimPublish
🟡 Partially verifiedSome elements corroborated; material gaps remainPublish with gaps
❔ UnverifiedInsufficient evidence either way — a legitimate resultPublish as open
🚫 ContradictedEvidence weighs against the claimPublish the finding
Reliability
How sure are we? Read the bubble.
Every verdict carries a reliability bubble — our confidence in the evidence behind it. A bubble never upgrades a verdict; it only tells you how hard the evidence was to shake.
🟢 High
Multiple independent sources agree. The evidence chain is closed and hard to shake.
🟡 Medium
Credible evidence with real gaps — enough to publish, open about what's missing.
🔴 Low
Thin or single-source evidence. Treat the verdict as provisional until more arrives.
Verification class
One class per token. Computed, not judged.
Every token page carries a verification class — a single chip derived mechanically from the five question verdicts at build time. No analyst assigns it; the build computes it, and the build refuses to publish any page it cannot classify.
Class AEvery applicable question verifiedFull chain
Class BVerified / partially verified mix — no unverified, no contradictedGaps noted
Class COne or more questions unverified — a legitimate resultOpen
Class DEvidence contradicts the claim on at least one questionFlagged
NativeBearer-native asset — verified as the thing itself, not on the claim axisStructural
Forensic dossiers keep the class assigned during forensic review, on the same A/B/C/D scale. The class is a verification statement, never a quality ranking — automate evidence, not judgment. This class system is published for FORTUNA's review.
The discipline
Rules we don't break.
- 01Verified is not plausible; unverified is not disproven. The job is to close the chain.
- 02Status changes require new evidence — never new interpretation of old evidence.
- 03The record distinguishes: the asset changed, our understanding changed, or our confidence changed.
- 04Negative findings are preserved. "No evidence found" is a finding.
- 05Expired and invalidated views stay in the record. The archive is never edited to flatter us.
Visual vocabulary
One emoji, one idea.
Every complex concept on FORTUNA SIGNAL keeps the same visual anchor wherever it appears — so a reader can link an idea to an image at a glance.
The ticket
A token's claim — what the holder is said to own.
The treasure
The underlying asset — what stands behind the ticket.
The custodian
The identifiable entity holding the underlying.
The inventory
Reserves, and how they are checked.
The return
Redemption: how a claim becomes the thing again.
The reckoning
Who is liable if redemption fails.
The dining room
What the customer sees — the familiar experience.
The kitchen
The machinery behind the scenes — settlement, infrastructure.
Observation
What happened — something we can point to.
Interpretation
Why it might matter — and where the analogy ends.
Revision
What would change the view — the loop stays open.
Verified
Independent sources corroborate the claim.
Partially verified
Some elements corroborated; material gaps remain.
Unverified
Insufficient evidence either way — a legitimate result.
Contradicted
Evidence weighs against the claim.
Individual stories may define their own concept emojis in their concept key — the vocabulary above is the site's shared baseline, and story-local emojis are always defined where they are used.