> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.webacy.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Methodology Overview

Webacy assesses risk across digital assets and the systems in which they operate. Our methodology combines on-chain activity with off-chain evidence to evaluate how an asset or structure could fail, expose users to loss, or become difficult to exit.

This section explains the principles behind our rating framework. Individual methodology pages describe how those principles apply to [stablecoins](/stablecoin), markets (coming soon), [vaults](/vault), curators (coming soon), and protocols (coming soon).

## A framework based on probability of loss

Our framework centers on **probability of loss**: the likelihood that a user’s exposure to an asset or structure results in financial loss.

Loss can arise through several paths, including a failure to redeem, a loss of backing, a smart contract exploit, insufficient liquidity, or a failure in a critical dependency. The relevant paths depend on what is being assessed.

We evaluate the conditions that make these outcomes more or less likely, the protections available, and the connections between sources of risk. A rating summarizes this assessment into a comparable view of risk. It should not be interpreted as a precise percentage probability unless explicitly stated.

<Note>
  Our rating methodology based on probability of loss is separate from our risk scores for wallets, transactions, smart contracts, and other onchain asset types.
</Note>

## On-chain and off-chain assessment

**On-chain risk is assessed in real time**, using observable blockchain activity and conditions. This includes the behavior of smart contracts, transactions, liquidity, asset concentrations, and dependencies.

**Off-chain risk is assessed as close to real time as available information allows.** This includes issuer disclosures, reserve reporting, legal arrangements, governance, and operational controls. Update frequency depends on when sources publish information and when that information can be verified.

These perspectives are evaluated together. Strong off-chain backing can coexist with on-chain vulnerabilities, while sound technical infrastructure can still depend on weak financial or operational arrangements.

## From risk factors to ratings

Our methodology organizes evidence into three levels:

* **Risk types:** Broad dimensions of risk relevant to the asset or structure.
* **Risk categories:** Specific areas of assessment within each risk type.
* **Risk factors:** Individual conditions or indicators used to evaluate each category.

Risk factors inform category assessments, which contribute to the broader risk types and overall rating. Each asset-specific methodology defines the relevant categories and how they contribute to the assessment.

Supporting records provide context and evidence. They are informational and do not independently contribute to the rating.

We publish the structure and scope of our assessments while keeping proprietary scoring rules, thresholds, and detailed factor logic private.

## How our approach differs

Traditional credit ratings, such as those from S\&P Global Ratings and Moody’s, primarily address creditworthiness and the risk associated with financial obligations. Digital asset rating providers such as Particula extend assessment to tokenized assets using both on-chain and off-chain information.

Webacy’s methodology focuses on the paths to financial loss across digital assets and their operating environments. It connects asset-level risk with the markets, vaults, curators, protocols, and dependencies through which users gain exposure. Continuous on-chain assessment allows that view to evolve as observable conditions change.


This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.