Before capital flows, there is an assessment: the DAAF is the proprietary review framework for token and tokenization projects — documented methodology, a standardized ten-step process, defined deliverables. It forms the basis on which projects are evaluated and introduced to investors.
Evaluating digital-asset projects requires three fields of competence at once: token architecture, regulatory classification and the economics of the underlying asset. Classic due-diligence processes separate these fields into silos — legal, financial, technical — and have them reviewed by separate experts. Token structures, however, regularly fail at the interfaces: where product qualification, collateral structure and technical implementation interlock. The DAAF examines exactly these interfaces — in one integrated procedure, used both for the independent review of investment projects (family offices, funds, institutional investors) and for issuer readiness assessments.
Every statement in a review memorandum is assigned to one of three categories and labelled accordingly:
Documented or verifiable facts — with a source reference in the Source Documentation.
Undocumented matters requiring clarification — transferred to the Issues Register with an assigned document request (Evidence Register).
Risk assessment by the authors — labelled as such and classified in the Assessment Matrix by plausibility and structural impact.
The review is document-based along a standardized catalogue: corporate structure, technology validation, asset valuation, token structure and investor rights, regulation, governance. Before release, memoranda pass an internal four-eyes review with separated drafting and approval roles, and are maintained under version control.
Steps 01–08: review mandate (service line 1) · steps 09–10 (dashed): transition into a separate implementation mandate (service line 2)
The framework accompanies projects across the entire lifecycle: service line 1 starts in the readiness and due-diligence phases, service line 2 carries issuance, operations and ongoing maintenance.
Three mandate forms: Initial Assessment based on the documents provided (typically 5–10 working days, fixed fee), full-scope due diligence supported by a data room along the complete review catalogue, and continuous screening of incoming projects on a retainer basis. Deliverables per mandate:
A separate, independently commissioned mandate: closing the structural, regulatory and technical gaps identified in a review — one's own or a third party's. Deliverables depending on scope:
Every statement rests on documents provided or publicly available.
Every finding carries a reference into the Source Documentation.
Facts and assessment remain distinguishable throughout.
Every editing state of a memorandum can be reconstructed.
Release only after independent internal counter-review with separated roles.
The same documents lead to the same result — regardless of the analyst.
The DAAF expressly does not comprise tax assessments, legal advice, investment recommendations, statutory audits, or a conclusive valuation of individual assets. What is examined is the traceability of the structures presented; where legal, tax or valuation questions are touched, work is coordinated with the client's advisers mandated for those matters.
Service line 1 (independent review) and service line 2 (implementation) are separate mandates with separate commissioning. Work is never performed simultaneously on the investor and issuer side of the same transaction. Existing or previous mandate relationships with a transaction party are disclosed before a mandate is accepted. An implementation mandate following one's own review requires the express knowledge and consent of the review's client.
Token projects regularly fail at the interfaces between law, structure and technology — exactly where separate expert opinions pass each other by. In the DAAF, review depth additionally arises from implementation experience: the review is conducted with the knowledge of someone who would have to build the structure themselves.
| Classic due diligence | DAAF |
|---|---|
| Legal, financial and technical commissioned separately | Integrated assessment of the interfaces in one procedure |
| Document review | Document review plus technical plausibility checks by practitioners |
| External specialists per field | Documented, uniform methodology with an institutionally anchored four-eyes principle |
| Results report | Versioned framework with defined deliverables: registers, Assessment Matrix, action plan |
| Manual review | Technology-supported execution: structured document extraction, cross-document consistency checks, source linking, automatic contradiction detection, prioritization — significantly shorter analysis cycles |
MiCA documentation projects · FinSA classification · ADGM FSRA · whitepaper and disclosure documentation
ERC-3643 structures · register and portal systems · custody integration · hardware wallet ecosystems
Institutional due diligence · tokenomics reviews · structuring · conflict-of-interest and control reviews
Application rests on documented project work. Reference work — complete MiCA documentation sets, ERC-3643 issuance infrastructure and review memoranda in anonymized form — can be inspected under confidentiality as part of an introductory call.
All steps up to the Initial Assessment involve no further obligation on the client's part:
The Digital Asset Assessment Framework (DAAF) is a proprietary, documented review framework maintained under version control (© 2026 C&W Software Labs AG). Analyses do not constitute legal, tax or investment advice.