Limitations
What the risk grade does not mean. Read this part.
- The scale is relative, not absolute. Grades rank opportunities against each other within Akashi's catalogue. An A is the safest thing here, not a safe thing.
- The score is not a probability. It is not an expected loss and does not translate to "X % chance of losing money". An expected-loss model (probability of default × loss given default) was designed and deliberately not built: its constants would need calibration against a failure history we do not have enough of.
- The constants are expert judgement. Weights and thresholds are informed by a curated history of 21 recorded DeFi incidents. That is enough to calibrate directions and classes, not per-protocol precision.
- Coverage is stablecoin-only. Opportunities outside the stablecoin catalogue are shown as "Not rated" rather than given a number the model cannot support.
- Some inputs are undisclosed. Multisig thresholds, treasury size and insurance funds are published by only a minority of protocols. Where a fact is missing, the model takes the cautious reading.
- Audits are deliberately down-weighted. Every protocol in the catalogue is audited, and audited protocols have still been exploited. Track record, incident history and control of the upgrade key say more.
- A grade is not a safety guarantee and cannot anticipate a novel exploit. Smart-contract risk is real at every venue on the board.