Independent pre-tokenization decision support

Turn tokenization ideas into a structured verdict.

Before you tokenize, assess whether you should — and how. TVAC is an independent, formula-first value-add assessment engine that evaluates whether a specific tokenization design creates net added value compared with conventional alternatives before you commit to legal structuring, platform selection, vendor engagement or implementation spend. It is designed for both capital-raising and non-capital-raising cases — including funds, financial-institution use cases, asset-owner projects, operational tokenization, custody, payment/cash-leg readiness, settlement and lifecycle structures.

TVAC is an independent, formula-first assessment that helps you decide whether tokenization actually creates added value — in minutes, not months. You get a structured report that makes costs, risks, and value transparent before you spend time and money.

  • Structured early assessment — get a case-specific first view in minutes, before specialist work begins.
  • Avoid costly dead ends — spot weak cases before legal, technical, and advisory spend.
  • Structured output — a shareable report with explicit rationale and assumptions.
Independent by design Formula-first methodology Focused on tokenization value — not investment yield Capital-raise + non-capital-raise cases Settlement & cash-leg readiness Before platform selection Case-specific output Reports in 7 languages
Sample evaluation snapshot
Overall value-add score
3.5
Tokenization Value Verdict: Conditional Go
Input completeness: 95%
Factor breakdown
New Opportunities
6.5
Cost Savings
4.0
Risk Reduction
4.5
Tokenization Costs
6.0
New Risks
5.5
Built on the formula: (New Opportunities + Cost Savings + Risk Reduction) − (Tokenization Costs + New Risks).
The output is structured for internal sharing: factor logic, explicit assumptions, and concrete levers to improve the score.

Analytical discipline

Three questions. One clear focus.

Tokenization projects are often promoted through attractive asset stories, projected returns, or market narratives. TVAC keeps the analysis disciplined by separating the appeal of the underlying asset from the specific value created by tokenization.

Is the asset attractive?

TVAC does not decide this. A compelling asset story can make a project interesting, but it does not prove that tokenization adds value.

Are projected returns and risks credible?

TVAC does not validate yield, coupon payments, valuations, credit quality, cash-flow projections, legal enforceability, tax treatment, or investor suitability.

Does tokenization add genuine value?

This is what TVAC evaluates: new opportunities, cost savings, risk reduction, tokenization costs, and new risks compared with conventional alternatives.

Verdict interpretation

A TVAC Viable verdict means that tokenization appears to create net added value under the stated assumptions. It does not mean that the investment is sound, the yield is realistic, the issuer is creditworthy, or the instrument is suitable for investors.

Why TVAC is different

Independent, formula-first tokenization assessment

TVAC is not built as a platform funnel, a readiness score, or a way to push projects toward tokenization by default. It is an independent decision-support tool designed to assess whether tokenization genuinely improves a specific case compared with conventional alternatives.

Independent by design

TVAC is not an issuance platform and does not depend on selling implementation services. It can recommend moving forward, changing the structure — or not tokenizing at all.

Formula-first methodology

Asset tokenization is still a young, fragmented and often overhyped market. TVAC therefore does not rely solely on available market data, vendor experience or generic industry assumptions. It starts with a clear added-value formula and evaluates whether tokenization creates genuine net benefit in the specific case.

Beyond capital raises

TVAC is not limited to STO-style capital-raising projects. It can assess tokenization cases involving financial institutions, funds, asset owners, private markets, custody, settlement, lifecycle design and operational use cases — including cases where no capital raise is involved.

The model

TVAC is built on a fixed added value formula

TVAC is built from the formula outward. Because asset tokenization is still a young, fragmented and often overhyped market, TVAC does not treat available market data, vendor experience or anecdotal industry patterns as sufficient proof of viability. Instead, every assessment starts with a fixed added-value formula and asks whether tokenization creates genuine net benefit compared with conventional alternatives. The assessment is anchored in structured input parameters such as jurisdictions, investor scope, disclosure, custody, payment/cash-leg model, settlement, venue and transfer restrictions — so results do not depend on ad hoc judgment, but on a consistent method where you can see exactly which design choices drive the outcome. AI is used as a controlled analytic component within that framework: it is not asked to define the criteria, create its own decision logic, or give a free-form opinion on whether tokenization is “good” or “bad”.

What the five factors capture

  • New Opportunities: distribution, liquidity pathways, new investor access, programmability, settlement utility.
  • Cost Savings: operational efficiency, automation, simpler processes over time.
  • Risk Reduction: improved controls, transparency, settlement/counterparty improvements (when real).
  • Tokenization Costs: build/integration, legal/compliance work, vendor/platform dependencies.
  • New Risks: regulatory friction, governance complexity, tech/custody risks, operational attack surface.
Core formula
Added Value = (New Opportunities + Cost Savings + Risk Reduction) – (Tokenization Costs + New Risks)

Under uncertainty, TVAC scores conservatively and makes assumptions explicit — so genuinely different assumptions can be compared in a controlled way when Scenario Lab is relevant.

Formula-first, methodology-governed AI

TVAC does not start with an open-ended prompt to a general-purpose AI model. Its Added Value formula, factor definitions, structured input parameters, scoring criteria, verdict logic and required report sections define the assessment frame first. The AI model helps interpret case-specific information and prepare the analysis within that frame; TVAC then consolidates, checks and normalizes the result against required sections and consistency rules before the final report is rendered.

The methodology governs the AI — not the other way around.

Settlement & cash-leg readiness

Tokenization is not only about the asset.

TVAC assesses whether the payment and settlement layer is credible for the specific case. A tokenized asset may offer limited practical value if the cash leg still depends on slow, manual or poorly integrated payment rails — especially where the case claims faster settlement, DvP, automated payments, secondary liquidity or collateral mobility.

Payment model fit

TVAC considers whether the case uses traditional fiat rails, bank or custodian settlement, stablecoins, tokenized cash, deposit tokens, DvP workflows or another payment model — and whether that model is realistic for the target users and jurisdictions.

Cash-leg dependency

The assessment distinguishes between cases where cash leg is marginal and cases where it is central. A closed administrative ownership-record use case is treated differently from a tokenized bond, collateral workflow or secondary-market structure.

Proportional treatment

Cash-leg readiness is not a new universal hurdle. TVAC evaluates whether the settlement design is proportionate to the value proposition. Weak cash-leg design becomes critical only when the case itself depends on settlement-sensitive benefits.

Important distinction

TVAC does not assume that every tokenization project needs a stablecoin, deposit token or CBDC solution from day one. It asks whether the asset leg, cash leg, custody, compliance and settlement process are coherent enough for the claimed tokenization benefits to be credible.

How it works

A conservative workflow in four steps

Designed to be useful early — before heavy legal/vendor work begins — and structured so stakeholders can trust the logic.

Step 1

Describe the case

Asset, jurisdictions, investor scope, liquidity plan, custody model, constraints, and objectives.

Step 2

TVAC evaluates added value

Scores the case on five factors and applies the formula: (NO + CS + RR) − (TC + NR).

Step 3

You get a verdict + a deep report

A structured, case-specific report (30+ pages, ~9,000 words) with rationale, assumptions, blockers and levers.

Step 4

Optional: compare controlled alternatives

When a case has genuinely different structures or assumptions, Scenario Lab can compare the completed report as Scenario A — the baseline — with up to two controlled alternatives.

Who it’s for

Built for professional tokenization stakeholders

For teams that must be credible, conservative, and execution-oriented — and need a repeatable way to qualify real projects.

Issuers & Asset Owners

Determine whether a specific tokenization project creates net added value — and what must be in place before proceeding.

  • Early Go/No‑Go clarity
  • Clear “conditions to proceed”
  • Design levers that improve viability

Advisors & Service Providers

Qualify inbound requests, clarify scope, and accelerate onboarding across legal, technical, and operational workstreams.

  • Standardized case qualification
  • Faster discovery of constraints
  • Sharper scope for experts

Asset Managers, Banks & Financial Institutions

Use a consistent decision basis and comparable outputs across a tokenization pipeline — internally or when servicing clients.

  • Consistency across deal flow
  • Governance‑friendly documentation
  • Comparable scoring across cases

Institutional & partner access

Enterprise API and branded report delivery for larger workflows

TVAC can be deployed for selected institutions, advisory firms, platforms and service providers that need a consistent pre-tokenization decision layer across multiple cases, client workflows or internal pipelines.

Partner API pathway

For organisations that need TVAC embedded in an existing workflow, platform or internal screening process. Access is configured individually, with controlled credentials, usage limits and onboarding.

Co-branded reports

Selected partners can use TVAC Deep Assessments with their own approved name, logo, colours and contact details while preserving the agreed methodology, report integrity and scope boundaries.

Controlled white-label options

Where commercially and operationally appropriate, Astoval can discuss controlled white-label delivery for institutional use. This is not an open self-service feature and is assessed case by case.

Current availability: institutional and partner pilots are available by arrangement. TVAC does not currently offer a public, self-service API or a self-service white-label dashboard.

Guided tour

A product tour of a real 9,000+‑word TVAC report

Explore a visual, step-by-step tour through a concrete tokenization case report — showing the structure, the five-factor logic, the assumptions, and how the analysis becomes case-specific.

Optional scenario comparison

Scenario Lab compares controlled alternatives — without turning the report into live optimization.

For many cases, one Deep Assessment is enough. Scenario Lab is an optional add-on for cases where the team needs to compare genuinely different tokenization assumptions under the same TVAC methodology.

Baseline anchored

The completed TVAC report becomes Scenario A — the baseline, so the comparison starts from the exact assessment already produced.

Controlled alternatives

Scenario B and Scenario C can test carefully defined alternative assumption sets, such as instrument structure, custody, venue, settlement, investor scope, or jurisdictions.

Comparison output

The result is a Scenario Lab workspace and comparison report showing how verdicts, factor scores, risks, and validation gates move relative to the baseline.

Boundary

Scenario Lab is a controlled comparison view. It is not live optimization, legal structuring, regulatory approval, investment analysis, technical design, implementation advice, or a recommendation to proceed. It is most relevant when there are genuinely different structures or assumptions to compare.

Full sample assessments

See how TVAC evaluates real-world tokenization decisions

Explore six full TVAC assessments based on hypothetical but realistic tokenization cases. The selection spans institutional capital markets, agricultural receivables, renewable-energy financing, permissioned digital lending and retail asset tokenization.

The cases include positive, conditional and negative verdicts — because TVAC is designed to assess tokenization critically, not to justify it automatically. Each report begins with a decision-oriented summary and then provides the underlying factor analysis, assumptions, risks, stakeholder implications, decision gates and recommendations.

Geography does not determine the verdict. Each result reflects the specific case design, evidence, conventional baseline and implementation assumptions. Country or region is one input among many and does not determine whether a case is assessed as Viable, Conditional Go or Non-viable.

About the sample cases. These assessments are based on hypothetical but realistic cases created for testing and demonstration purposes. They do not describe actual clients or projects. The reports demonstrate TVAC’s methodology, analytical depth and output structure; they do not provide legal, regulatory, tax, financial or investment advice concerning any real transaction.
2
Viable
2
Conditional Go
2
Non-viable
Brazil · Private credit
Conditional Go

Agricultural Receivables Financing

Net Added Value: 0Plus 10 · Minus 10

Why this case matters

A realistic early-stage receivables case with fragmented originator data, unresolved vehicle design and no confirmed investor demand. TVAC identifies meaningful potential but concludes that the available evidence does not yet establish net added value.

Case maturity
Structured concept
Input quality
Partial
View original case input
We are a Brazilian agricultural finance company working with midsized grain and input distributors. We purchase short-dated receivables arising from sales to farms and cooperatives, and we currently finance the portfolio through bank facilities and a small number of private investors. The portfolio has historical payment data, but the data is held across several originators and has not yet been standardized for external investors. We are considering a tokenized note or participation structure linked to a diversified pool of receivables. The objective is to broaden access to professional investors, improve reporting on collections and concentration limits, and reduce some of the manual administration between originators, servicers and investors. We have not decided whether the issuance should sit in a dedicated securitization vehicle, another SPV structure, or an existing fund arrangement. The initial idea is a Brazil-only professional-investor offering with whitelist-based onboarding. We do not need continuous trading, and a buy-and-hold structure may be sufficient. We have spoken informally with technology and custody providers, but we do not yet have binding quotations, a final registry model or a confirmed approach to secondary transfers. The key unresolved questions are the legal and operational link between the token and the receivables, assignment and servicing continuity, data quality across originators, cash-flow controls, tax treatment and whether investors will value tokenization enough to offset the additional structuring and provider costs. No legal opinion or investor commitment has been obtained yet.
United States · Institutional market infrastructure
Viable

Institutional Collateral and Repo Workflow

Net Added Value: +9Plus 18 · Minus 9

Why this case matters

An institutional use case in which tokenization is not expected to create artificial liquidity or improve the underlying asset. Its potential value lies in reducing collateral-movement friction, settlement failures and operational risk within an existing high-volume workflow.

Case maturity
Structured concept
Input quality
Complete
View original case input
We are an institutional market participant running a high-volume collateral and secured financing (repo-style) workflow in US government securities. The underlying instruments are already liquid; the value-add of tokenization is not “creating liquidity”, but reducing post-trade friction, settlement fails, and operational risk in collateral movements. We want to run a permissioned tokenized collateral rail where eligible participants (professional institutions only) can move tokenized collateral positions under strict eligibility controls, with regulated custody and clear operational governance. The design is single-jurisdiction (US) and deliberately avoids retail access, public DeFi venues, and open-ended secondary trading. Crucially, this is not a greenfield build: the custody and tri-party / agent workflows already exist, and the token layer is implemented as an incremental module on top of existing collateral eligibility rules, margining processes, and reporting. Participants are whitelisted, controls are institutional- grade, and operational responsibilities are clearly assigned. The Asset Owner / initiating participant is the primary beneficiary of the operational savings and risk reduction (not external vendors). The tokenization layer is used to implement (1) near-instant, controlled delivery-versus-payment (DvP) settlement to reduce counterparty exposure during settlement windows, (2) cleaner intraday collateral mobility (substitution, margining, and return flows) with fewer manual breaks, and (3) an auditable, tamper-evident event trail that reduces disputes and accelerates reconciliation between counterparties and custodians. We explicitly decommission duplicated reconciliation steps for the tokenized lane (no permanent parallel “double-booking”), so savings are structural. Expected benefits are measurable at scale: fewer fails, fewer exception tickets, faster dispute resolution, tighter control over collateral release, and reduced reconciliation time per movement. Costs and risks remain real (legal/compliance scoping, integration, governance), but the scope is bounded: permissioned participants, regulated custody, conservative US-only perimeter, and no reliance on stablecoins or permissionless liquidity.
Chile · Renewable-energy financing
Non-viable

Solar-Project Revenue Participation

Net Added Value: −4Plus 9 · Minus 13

Why this case matters

A seemingly attractive renewable-energy financing opportunity in which tokenization-specific value remains unproven. The report shows why a strong underlying asset story does not by itself justify a tokenized structure.

Case maturity
Structured concept
Input quality
Partial
View original case input
We are a Chilean renewable-energy developer with several operating solar assets and a pipeline of smaller projects. We are considering raising capital against a defined share of future project revenues, potentially including energy-sale income and environmental attributes where those rights can be clearly identified and transferred. The objective is to fund new construction without selling full ownership of the operating companies. One option is a tokenized participation note issued through a dedicated vehicle. Investors would receive contractual economic rights, but not control of the projects. We expect to target professional investors in Chile and possibly a limited number of investors elsewhere in the region. We have not decided whether environmental attributes should be included in the instrument, kept separate, or excluded until their registry and verification treatment is clearer. We do not currently assume continuous trading. Periodic transfers or redemptions might be useful, but no venue or liquidity provider has been selected. Custody, the authoritative investor register and the payment process are also open, and we have not decided which party would operate those functions. We have engineering and production data for the operating assets, but no independent assessment of the proposed token rights, projected investor demand or the incremental cost of tokenization. The main uncertainties are rights mapping, project and vehicle cash-flow waterfalls, measurement and verification of environmental attributes, changes in registry treatment, construction risk for new assets, cross-border distribution, tax, and whether investors would prefer a conventional private placement.
Switzerland / UAE · Digital lending
Conditional Go

Permissioned Lending Pool with Tokenized Collateral

Net Added Value: −2Plus 12 · Minus 14

Why this case matters

A technically ambitious early-stage case involving tokenized collateral, digital cash, oracle dependencies, liquidation mechanics and protocol governance. TVAC identifies genuine potential, but only if legal rights, stress recovery and operational controls are resolved.

Case maturity
Early exploration
Input quality
Partial
View original case input
We are developing a permissioned lending pool intended for professional participants. Borrowers would post tokenized short-term trade-finance or receivables positions as collateral and draw a stablecoin or other digital cash asset. Lenders would receive pool tokens representing their economic interest in the lending strategy. The proposed value comes from programmable collateral controls, faster funding and the possibility of integrating the pool with other approved on-chain applications. However, the design is still early. We have not finalized the legal entity, governing law, treatment of pool tokens, collateral SPVs, custody model, oracle providers, liquidation process or whether participants may use the positions outside the pool. Participation would be permissioned and limited to professional or institutional users, but the potential jurisdictions are not yet fixed. We are considering an operating entity in Switzerland or the UAE and investors from several markets. No final distribution analysis has been completed. The cash leg is currently assumed to be a stablecoin, although bank-backed tokenized deposits could be considered later. The economics depend on borrower demand, lender liquidity, collateral performance, protocol integrations and governance decisions that may change after launch. Key risks include legal enforceability of collateral rights, oracle and valuation failures, smart-contract vulnerabilities, liquidation under stress, stablecoin dependency, liquidity concentration, governance changes, provider and bridge dependencies, and the possibility that composability creates risks not visible in a static initial assessment. We have a prototype but no audited production system or committed liquidity.
United States · Capital markets
Viable

Tokenized Commercial Paper

Net Added Value: +7Plus 14 · Minus 7

Why this case matters

A conventional capital-markets workflow in which potential value comes from issuance automation, cleaner position records and reduced lifecycle reconciliation — not from higher yield or speculative liquidity.

Case maturity
Structured concept
Input quality
Complete
View original case input
We are a US-based corporate issuer with an existing, recurring commercial paper (CP) program used for short-term working capital. Today the program relies on multiple intermediaries, manual confirmations, repeated reconciliations between the issuer’s treasury team, issuing/placing agents, custodians, and investors, and a settlement cycle that creates operational friction and occasional settlement fails. We want to introduce a tokenized CP note format (economically equivalent to our existing CP) for professional and accredited investors only. This is not a retail product and not a public exchange initiative. The scope is deliberately conservative: a single US issuance + distribution perimeter, whitelisted participation, and institutional-grade custody. The primary objective is post-trade efficiency and risk reduction rather than “new liquidity”. The tokenized format is designed to (1) reduce reconciliation breaks by moving to a single shared position record, (2) automate issuance and lifecycle events (issuance confirmations, coupon/accrual reporting, maturity repayment notices), and (3) tighten settlement controls through delivery-versus-payment (DvP) style workflows. Importantly, we commit to decommissioning duplicated legacy steps for the tokenized tranche (no permanent parallel “double-booking”), so savings are structural rather than cosmetic. We expect measurable cost savings (reduced agent/custody operations per issuance, fewer manual exceptions) and measurable risk reduction (fewer settlement fails, cleaner audit trail, reduced counterparty/operational exposure). Any secondary transfers, if permitted at all, are tightly controlled and limited to eligible whitelisted holders under standard securities restrictions. The issuer is the primary beneficiary of the operational savings and control improvements under this design.
Global · Retail asset tokenization
Non-viable

Fractional Fine-Art NFTs

Net Added Value: −16Plus 4 · Minus 20

Why this case matters

A deliberately challenging case combining global retail distribution, unclear ownership rights, self-custody and assumed DEX liquidity. TVAC concludes that the proposed structure creates substantially more risk and complexity than value.

Case maturity
Structured concept
Input quality
Mostly complete
View original case input
We plan to acquire a portfolio of fine art pieces and offer fractional ownership to a global retail audience through NFTs. Marketing would be conducted via social media campaigns, and participation would be open to anyone able to connect a self-custody wallet. The legal structure is not fully defined. Tokens may represent a mixture of contractual claims, informal profit-sharing promises, and membership rights tied to an offshore holding entity. We do not intend to publish a prospectus or formal disclosure document and prefer minimal onboarding friction. Tokens would trade continuously on decentralized exchanges with atomic on-chain settlement. Transfers would not be restricted by jurisdiction, and investors would self-custody their tokens. The business thesis relies on global retail demand, social momentum, and perceived liquidity from DEX trading. However, significant risks include unclear investor protection, cross-border securities law exposure, valuation disputes, provenance challenges, market manipulation, and regulatory enforcement uncertainty. The economic and legal alignment between token holders and the underlying artwork ownership remains structurally ambiguous.

Different cases. The same disciplined question.

TVAC applies the same five-factor methodology across widely different structures. The verdict does not depend on whether the underlying asset sounds attractive, whether tokenization is popular in the relevant market or whether the project uses advanced technology. It depends on whether the specific design appears likely to create greater opportunities, cost savings and risk reduction than the additional tokenization costs and new risks it introduces.

Added Value = (New Opportunities + Cost Savings + Risk Reduction) − (Tokenization Costs + New Risks)

Your case

Ready to assess your own tokenization structure?

A sample report can demonstrate TVAC’s depth and methodology, but your verdict depends on your specific asset, investor scope, operational model, jurisdictional setup and implementation assumptions.

Behind the scenes

How TVAC turns your inputs into a structured report

TVAC is not a “single prompt.” The formula and methodology govern the AI model’s role within a structured workflow that validates inputs, applies fixed evaluation rules, and assembles a consistent report layout designed for internal and board-level review.

Process overview (high level)

  • You describe the case in free text and answer structured questions.
  • The app validates inputs and packages them into a single case payload.
  • On “Generate report,” the payload is sent securely to the TVAC backend (API).
  • The backend applies TVAC’s fixed methodology: Added Value formula, criteria, and report structure.
  • A tightly structured request, governed by TVAC’s methodology and required analytical format, is sent via API to an AI model.
  • The model returns structured case-specific analytical components within that predefined framework.
  • TVAC validates and consolidates the components, applies its fixed calculation and consistency logic, and produces the final report structure, scores and Tokenization Value Verdict.
  • The API returns the full report content/data to your browser.
  • The UI renders the final report and supports print-to-PDF.
  • You describe the case in free text and answer structured questions.
  • The app validates inputs and packages them into a single case payload.
  • The payload is processed by the TVAC backend using a fixed methodology and strict evaluation rules (including an AI model step).
  • TVAC consolidates and sanity-checks the results, then returns a structured report you can print to PDF and use for internal or board-level review.

Important: TVAC does not publish raw model output. The model is constrained by TVAC’s methodology and required structure, and the results are checked and normalized before rendering.

Why this matters

  • Method-governed: outputs follow a fixed framework, criteria, and required sections—not ad hoc generation.
  • Consistency: comparable outputs across cases (same structure, same factor logic).
  • Explainability: reasoning is tied to your inputs, explicit assumptions, and the Added Value formula.
  • Conservative checks: missing or contradictory inputs are handled cautiously.

Note: Please do not submit passwords, private keys, identification documents, unnecessary personal data, or other information that is not required for the assessment.

Methodology & report proof

See the methodology in a concrete, case-specific report

TVAC produces structured output you can share internally: factor logic, explicit assumptions, risk focus, and clear next steps. Tap the screenshot to view the full report structure (Table of Contents).

Structured clarity for risk-averse stakeholders

TVAC is designed for fintech/legal/institutional environments where trust comes from structure and transparency.

  • Fixed five-factor scoring manual + clear verdict logic
  • Explicit assumptions and missing inputs
  • Concrete recommendations to improve added value
  • Shareable output for stakeholder alignment

Want the technical note?

Download the Methodology & Calibration PDF (v1.2).

Launch pricing

Start with one report, add Scenario Lab when relevant, or go Pro

Choose the format that fits your workflow: one-off assessment, optional report-based scenario comparison, or subscription access for repeated professional use. A Deep Assessment comes first; Scenario Lab can then be added when a completed report raises genuinely different alternatives worth comparing.

Introductory launch pricing. The prices below apply for a limited launch period and may be changed for future purchases.

One-off deep assessment report

€495
per report (launch price, ex. VAT)

A full, structured report: verdict, factor scores, rationale, blockers, levers, and practical next steps — typically 30+ pages (~9,000 words) depending on case complexity.

Reports are currently available in English, Spanish, French, German, Simplified Chinese and Danish.

After a completed report, Scenario Lab can be added when you need a controlled comparison of alternative assumptions.

  • Structured verdict and reasoning
  • Case-specific recommendations to improve added value
  • Risk register + mitigation focus (where relevant)
  • Stakeholder alignment (“who pays vs who benefits”)
  • What-if options (how to improve the score)

Scenario Lab add-on

€295
per baseline report add-on (launch price, ex. VAT)

Compare a completed TVAC report with up to two controlled alternative assumption sets.

Scenario Lab is available after a Deep Assessment has been completed. The completed report becomes Scenario A — the baseline; Scenario B and Scenario C can then test genuinely different assumptions under the same TVAC methodology.

  • Uses the completed report as Scenario A — the baseline
  • Up to two controlled alternative scenarios
  • One controlled replacement per alternative scenario
  • Comparison workspace + Scenario Lab comparison report
  • Not live optimization, not structuring advice, and not a recommendation to proceed

Available after a completed Deep Assessment. Purchase Scenario Lab from the finished report for €295 ex. VAT, when controlled alternatives are genuinely relevant.

Total when Scenario Lab is later added: €790 ex. VAT per project. TVAC Pro subscribers receive Scenario Lab access during the active subscription period.

TVAC Pro (subscription)

For platforms, advisors and teams evaluating multiple cases monthly.

€3,900
12-month access
€325/month equivalent · ex. VAT
€2,400
6-month access
€400/month equivalent · ex. VAT
  • Recurring access during subscription period (fair-use)
  • Scenario Lab access during active subscription period
  • Consistent evaluation framework across cases
  • Best for pipelines, screening and structured advisory

Choose the subscription period that fits your workflow and complete secure online checkout to activate access.

Partner, advisor or institutional use? Use TVAC with clients · Discuss partner access · Discuss institutional pilot

Trust & confidentiality

For standard self-service reports, TVAC uses the case description and structured answers to generate the requested assessment; Astoval ApS does not keep the case as reusable account history or build customer-derived training, benchmarking, or product-development datasets from it. Voluntary OpenAI data sharing and ordinary API-call logging are disabled. Temporary processing and limited retention still apply as described in the FAQ and Privacy Policy. Partner and institutional workspaces may intentionally retain private report history under separate arrangements.

Where TVAC fits

A smarter first step before heavy advisory spend

Before committing to legal structuring, vendor selection, technical scoping, or external advisory work, many teams first need a structured view of whether the tokenization case actually appears worth pursuing.

TVAC is designed exactly for that stage. In minutes, TVAC produces a structured, case-specific feasibility report with explicit assumptions, factor-by-factor logic, and a clear verdict.

This allows teams to identify weak cases early, refine stronger ones, and enter any later legal, technical, or consulting process better prepared.

TVAC is not a replacement for specialist advisors. It is a faster and more efficient first filter — ensuring deeper advisory work begins only when the case already appears structurally credible.

For platforms and service providers, TVAC does not replace your own qualification process, onboarding, legal review or platform-specific assessment. It helps potential clients clarify their assumptions, identify weak cases early and enter your commercial pipeline better prepared.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Clear, neutral answers—so you can decide if TVAC fits your use case.

What is TVAC?

TVAC (Tokenization Value‑Add Calculator) is an informational decision‑support tool. It helps you evaluate whether a specific tokenization design is likely to create net added value versus a conventional structure—and it produces a structured, shareable report.

What does TVAC help you do?

TVAC helps you make trade‑offs explicit early—before you spend significant time and money on structuring, legal work, vendor selection, or procurement.

You get a clear verdict, a factor‑by‑factor rationale, explicit assumptions, and concrete design levers you can use to improve feasibility and added value.

Who is TVAC for?

TVAC is useful if you are evaluating, designing, or reviewing a tokenization initiative—as an asset owner/issuer, project team, investment team, legal/compliance function, or service provider.

It is especially helpful when multiple stakeholders need a shared, structured basis for discussion.

How does TVAC evaluate “added value”?

TVAC uses a consistent five‑factor model:

Added Value = (New Opportunities + Cost Savings + Risk Reduction) – (Tokenization Costs + New Risks)

Each factor is scored on a 0–10 scale using predefined criteria. TVAC also applies a stakeholder lens (at minimum: Asset Owner, Investor, Service Providers) to highlight who captures upside and who bears costs/risks.

How are the individual factor scores determined?

Each factor score is determined by applying TVAC’s predefined internal assessment criteria to the specific case and comparing the proposed tokenization design with its credible conventional baseline.

The assessment considers the strength and materiality of the claimed effects, the assumptions and dependencies on which they rely, the quality and completeness of the available information, and any costs or risks that may offset the expected benefits.

The report explains the case-specific reasons behind each factor score. TVAC’s detailed scoring rubrics, calibration rules, model instructions and implementation logic are proprietary and are not published.

What does TVAC compare tokenization with — and does it know the value of every conventional alternative?

TVAC normally compares the proposed tokenization design with the current process or structure — the status quo. For a new project without an existing baseline, the comparison is a clearly stated conventional alternative or, where relevant, the option not to proceed.

TVAC does not claim to know the exact cost or performance of every possible conventional solution. It assesses the expected direction, materiality, and credibility of the changes introduced by tokenization across the five Added Value factors.

If the baseline is unclear or insufficiently documented, TVAC does not invent one. The report states the working assumption, scores conservatively, and identifies the missing evidence or validation needed before a firmer comparison can be made. The stronger the baseline information supplied, the stronger the comparison.

How does TVAC derive the verdict?

The verdict is derived from the Added Value profile and the internal consistency of the design (jurisdictions, investor scope, custody, venue, settlement, disclosure, and operating model).

Typical outcomes are Viable, Conditional Go, or Non-viable — but they are Tokenization Value Verdicts, not investment recommendations, credit assessments, yield validations, or regulatory approvals.

What inputs do you need?

Typically: asset type, jurisdictions, investor scope, legal wrapper, custody and venue assumptions, payment/settlement or cash‑leg approach, distribution thesis, and key constraints.

TVAC also reports an input completeness score and lists missing fields and explicit assumptions—so thin or contradictory inputs are treated more cautiously.

Does every tokenization case need a digital cash or stablecoin solution?

No. TVAC does not assume that every project needs stablecoins, deposit tokens, tokenized deposits or CBDC-based settlement from day one.

Instead, TVAC assesses whether the proposed payment and settlement model is proportionate to the value proposition. If a case mainly concerns ownership records, transfer controls or administration, a simple cash-leg model may be sufficient. If the case claims DvP, automated coupons, secondary liquidity, collateral mobility or 24/7 settlement, cash-leg readiness becomes a much more important design condition.

What do you receive in a Deep Assessment?

A Deep Assessment is a structured report (typically 30+ pages) designed for internal and board-level review. It includes:

  • Executive summary (verdict, key drivers, “conditions to proceed”)
  • Asset‑class & market context
  • Analysis result (assumptions, value pathways, investor segmentation, operational costs, regulatory path, custody/venue fit, risk register)
  • How the assessment was produced + how Added Value is computed
  • Stakeholder added value (who benefits, who pays, who bears risk)
  • Factor breakdown, risk heatmap, and mitigation focus
  • Recommendations, what‑if scenarios, and an indicative implementation roadmap
What is Scenario Lab?

Scenario Lab is an optional add-on to a completed Deep Assessment. It is purchased from the completed report, which becomes Scenario A — the baseline; you can then compare up to two controlled alternative assumption sets under the same TVAC methodology.

It is intended for cases where there are genuinely different structures or assumptions to compare — for example investor scope, custody, venue, settlement model, jurisdiction, or instrument structure. It is not live optimization, legal or regulatory advice, technical design, investment analysis, or a recommendation to proceed.

Which languages are TVAC reports available in?

TVAC reports are currently available in English, Spanish, French, German, Simplified Chinese, Danish and Brazilian Portuguese.

The assessment methodology, scoring logic and verdict structure remain the same across language versions, so localized reports reflect the same underlying TVAC analysis.

How can TVAC evaluate a project without knowing the exact cost of every element?

TVAC does not claim to produce an accounting-level project budget or predict the final fees of lawyers, platforms, custodians, or technical vendors. Those figures normally become clear only after legal structuring, provider selection, technical scoping, and implementation planning.

TVAC is designed to answer an earlier question: whether a proposed tokenization structure appears commercially and structurally worth investigating. In that respect, it works like an early feasibility assessment, not a final procurement exercise.

It examines the stated characteristics of a case — such as jurisdictional scope, investor access, regulatory demands, operating model, distribution, settlement, and technology — and assesses how they are likely to affect the balance between New Opportunities, Cost Savings, Risk Reduction, Tokenization Costs, and New Risks.

For example, a structure spanning 30 jurisdictions rather than five will normally require more legal, regulatory, compliance, and operational work. That may increase costs and risks, while also potentially broadening market or investor access. TVAC does not turn such changes into a precise price quotation; it evaluates their direction, relative significance, and trade-offs consistently under the same methodology.

The result is a case-specific feasibility assessment with explicit assumptions — not a final business case, commercial quote, or substitute for legal, technical, or commercial diligence. Where TVAC identifies a potentially viable case, concrete offers and specialist input remain necessary before execution.

Is TVAC based on detailed costings and outcome data from completed tokenization projects?

Not in the sense of claiming a comprehensive benchmark database containing the full budgets, operating results, invoices and internal performance data of a large number of completed projects.

Publicly available tokenization cases are highly heterogeneous and often provide only limited information about total implementation costs, ongoing operating costs, realised benefits, unsuccessful projects and the conventional alternative against which the outcome should be measured. The fact that a tokenized instrument was issued or a pilot was completed does not in itself demonstrate that tokenization created net added value.

TVAC therefore begins with the structure of the specific case and a credible conventional baseline. It applies the same fixed Added Value framework and predefined assessment criteria to identify how tokenization changes opportunities, costs and risks in that particular design.

Relevant market evidence and comparable cases can support calibration and plausibility checks where reliable information is available. They do not replace the case-specific structural analysis.

TVAC does not claim statistical certainty or accounting-level precision. Its purpose is to provide a disciplined, transparent and decision-relevant early assessment before the detailed costs and real-world outcomes of a project are known.

How does TVAC use AI — and is it just an AI opinion about my case?

No. TVAC does not simply ask a general-purpose AI model whether a tokenization case is “good” or “bad”. The method comes first: the fixed Added Value formula, factor definitions, structured inputs, scoring criteria, verdict logic and required report structure establish the frame in which the AI model operates.

The AI model assists with interpreting the case-specific information and preparing the analysis, but it is not asked to invent the underlying decision framework. TVAC then consolidates and checks the output against required sections and consistency rules; incomplete or contradictory inputs are handled more cautiously.

This makes TVAC more consistent and explainable than an open-ended AI conversation. It does not make the output a guarantee, a final budget, or a substitute for legal, technical, commercial, regulatory, or investment diligence.

Does TVAC assess whether an investment is attractive or a yield is realistic?

No. TVAC deliberately separates three different questions: whether the underlying asset is attractive, whether projected returns and risks are credible, and whether tokenization itself adds genuine value compared with conventional alternatives.

TVAC is designed to answer the third question. A high coupon, expected yield, or strong asset narrative is not treated as tokenization value in itself.

Is TVAC legal, tax, investment, or regulatory advice?

No. TVAC provides informational decision‑support only. It does not provide legal, regulatory, financial, investment, tax, credit, yield, valuation, or suitability advice. Jurisdiction‑specific matters must always be validated with qualified professionals.

What happens to the information I enter into TVAC?

TVAC uses your free-text project description and structured answers only to generate and deliver the assessment and report you request. For standard self-service reports, Astoval ApS does not create a reusable customer-case database or keep the case as account history.

TVAC does not create or maintain a customer-derived training or fine-tuning dataset, use case content to benchmark other customers, build unrelated products, sell case data, or disclose it to partners, investors, or other customers.

The case content is sent to OpenAI’s API solely to generate the requested assessment. Astoval ApS has disabled voluntary sharing of API inputs and outputs with OpenAI and has disabled ordinary API-call logging on the OpenAI Platform. OpenAI states that API data is not used to train or improve its models unless the API customer explicitly opts in. Under OpenAI’s standard data controls, API content and related metadata may nevertheless be retained in separate internal abuse-monitoring logs for up to 30 days.

Partner, API, white-label, or institutional workspaces may intentionally retain inputs and reports to provide private report history and downloads. Those arrangements are separately governed.

What happens after my standard self-service report has been generated?

TVAC does not create a permanent customer-case record, but the data is not literally erased everywhere at the exact instant the report appears.

Your case input and generated report remain in the active browser page’s working memory so you can review the report, prepare a language version, and print or save it as a PDF. TVAC does not write the standard case or report to browser local storage. They are normally cleared from the browser when the page is reloaded or the tab is closed. A PDF that you choose to save remains on your own device and is under your control.

On TVAC’s backend, the submitted input is processed transiently during the request and is not intentionally written to a persistent customer-case database. The generated assessment may remain in short-lived server-memory caches for no more than one hour to support report delivery, language preparation, and technical consistency. It is then deleted automatically; a server restart clears it sooner.

In the current standard self-service flow, TVAC does not retain a permanent PDF copy of the report. OpenAI’s separate internal abuse-monitoring retention described above may still apply for up to 30 days. Scenario Lab and partner or institutional workspaces have separate, clearly stated retention rules.

Can I use TVAC for confidential or commercially sensitive projects?

TVAC is designed for early-stage assessment of commercially sensitive projects, but users should still apply normal data-minimisation principles. Include what is needed to assess the tokenization structure and feasibility, and use anonymised parties, ranges, and placeholders where practical.

Do not enter passwords, private keys, wallet seed phrases, identification documents, customer lists, special-category personal data, regulated client records, or confidential information that is unnecessary for the assessment. TVAC is a decision-support tool, not a secure document repository.

If your organisation has strict procurement, confidentiality, data-residency, or retention requirements, contact Astoval before submitting the case so the intended workflow can be assessed.

Can lawyers, advisors or platforms use TVAC with clients?

Yes. TVAC can be used as a structured pre-assessment tool for clients considering tokenization. It helps qualify projects earlier, creates a more professional advisory process, and can either be used directly or bundled with specialist advisory services.

TVAC does not replace legal work, platform-specific qualification, onboarding or implementation review. It helps prepare better cases before those processes begin.

Can TVAC help improve a design (not just grade it)?

Yes. The report surfaces the few levers most likely to move the outcome: how to reduce costs/risks, tighten the operating model, and make distribution/liquidity assumptions more credible.

It also includes structured next steps and an indicative roadmap you can use for planning and stakeholder alignment.

About Astoval

Developed and operated by Astoval

TVAC is developed and operated by Astoval ApS, a Danish company founded by Michael Juul Rugaard. Michael is the author of Asset Tokenization (2025) and a contributing author to the Springer volume Tokenisation of Money (2026).

Methodology & Calibration

Non-marketing technical note describing the five-factor model, verdict logic, calibration approach, and limitations.