Methodology

The governing rule is that a gap stays a gap. Where a provider returns nothing, TokenGeek records that nothing was returned rather than a zero. Where a company has said nothing about a tokenized product, TokenGeek reports that it has found no statement, which is not the same as the company having no relationship. Where the issuer’s own documents do not establish a right, the answer is “not established”, which is not the same as “no”.

TokenGeek reads token contracts directly on the network they are deployed on, once per observation window, and records what it read along with when it read it. The universe it currently observes is narrow and is named on every page that reports a total: it is not the whole tokenized market.

An observation is never revised. A later reading is a new row, not a correction of an older one, and the historical record is append-only in the database itself rather than only by convention. Where TokenGeek did not collect on a given day, the gap is shown as a gap; it is never filled in.

Every figure travels with whether it was observed and, when it was not, why. A missing measurement is never rendered as zero, never carried forward from a previous day, and never averaged into a total. A total that excludes withheld figures says how many it excluded.

The price TokenGeek shows is the issuer’s quote for the underlying security, not a price for the token. When the quoted spread is too wide to draw a defensible midpoint from — which happens routinely while the underlying market is closed — TokenGeek records that the price was refused rather than publishing a midpoint it cannot stand behind.

Tokenized value is the share-equivalent supply TokenGeek observed multiplied by the issuer’s quote for the underlying share, in that observation. It is not a market capitalisation, not a valuation of the issuer, and not a price the token trades at. TokenGeek does not observe a token market price at all.

TokenGeek compares two observations of the same thing, measured the same way. When the supply is the same at both, TokenGeek says the supply was unchanged between those two observations. That is a statement about two readings, not about everything that happened in between: tokens may have been created and destroyed between them and arrived back at the same number. TokenGeek does not observe minting or burning, so it does not report it.

Where TokenGeek can establish how many shares of the underlying security exist, from a filing it names and dates, it reports the observed tokenized units as a share of that figure. Where it cannot, it reports nothing rather than an estimate, and it never applies a denominator dated after the observation it is describing.

A token is identified by the network it is on and its contract address, never by its ticker. Where TokenGeek has confirmed on-chain that a contract is the one the issuer published, it says so; where a check could not be completed, that is reported as an incomplete check rather than a failure.

What a token entitles its holder to is taken from the issuer’s own published terms, read by a person and cited to the document and section. TokenGeek reports what those documents state; it does not verify the legal reality they describe, and it says so on the page. Terms that are set per series are only asserted for the series whose documents have actually been read.

Where a company has publicly commented on a tokenized representation of its own security, TokenGeek reports the company’s stated position and takes none of its own. Where TokenGeek has searched and found nothing, it says it searched and found nothing, with the date. Where it has not searched, it says that instead. Silence is never reported as approval or as denial.

TokenGeek publishes source-backed information and prefers primary documents to summaries of them. If something here is wrong, it wants to know: see about TokenGeek for how to report it.