CORE3 Assigns Centrifuge a BBB PoL Grade While Flagging Public-Disclosure Gaps
The project-level assessment sits alongside regulated fund structures and growing institutional adoption. The central issue is what CORE3 could verify from public information—not whether the controls exist.
Guest contribution by CORE3 Research
Edited and fact-checked by IC News
Disclosure: CORE3 submitted this article to IC News and confirmed that it is not sponsored. IC News edited the article to ensure it met our publication standards and was factually accurate. CORE3 remains responsible for its scores and conclusions; publication does not constitute an endorsement of its methodology, ratings or conclusions by IC News. CORE3 informed IC News that any future data or co-marketing work with Centrifuge would require a separate proposal.
Centrifuge brings together two concepts that are often confused. It has secured growing institutional adoption of on-chain investment products. At the same time, CORE3’s open-source model identifies project-level controls that could not be verified in publicly available information. Neither fact cancels out the other.
What does CORE3’s score mean?
As of 12 August 2026, CORE3’s public Centrifuge profile ranked the project 30th, with a Probability of Loss (PoL) score of 29.00, a BBB grade, high confidence, and 77% data coverage. CORE3 informed IC News that the methodology published on its website was released on 2 April 2026.
The score is an output of CORE3’s structured crypto-project risk model. It is not a credit rating of Centrifuge, Anemoy or any fund, and 29.00 should not be interpreted as a literal forecast of a 29% loss. Under CORE3’s methodology, lower PoL scores represent a more favourable risk assessment, while scores from 20 to 30 fall within the BBB band.
This distinction is important because otherwise a single project score could be mistakenly taken as a judgement about every legal entity, fund and underlying asset connected to the platform. CORE3’s assessment is narrower.
Institutional adoption is real.
Centrifuge has continued to expand its institutional footprint. In May, Coinbase made a strategic investment in Centrifuge, designating it a preferred tokenisation infrastructure platform. Then, in June, Ethena selected Centrifuge as a strategic tokenisation partner, announcing that it was allocating capital to the Janus Henderson Anemoy AAA CLO fund (JAJA). As the public announcement did not state a dollar amount, this article will not attach one to that allocation.
Later in June, New York Life Investment Management announced its first tokenised offering: a US high-yield corporate bond strategy built on Centrifuge’s infrastructure. These developments represent meaningful adoption. However, they do not, in isolation, verify every operational control measured by CORE3’s model.
CORE3 has identified a public-information gap.
CORE3 states that its assessment did not verify several items tracked by its methodology. These include specified security certifications, third-party monitoring, insurance coverage, and broader regulatory compliance signals within the evaluated project-level scope.
The wording must remain precise. ‘Not publicly verified’ does not mean ‘absent’. A control may exist, but only be accessible through private due diligence, a data room, an attestation or a confidentiality agreement. The supportable conclusion concerns public visibility, not the existence of the control itself.
Dmytro Zaporozhchenko, Content Architect at CORE3, told IC News that the relevant concern is the public visibility of operational controls that CORE3 could not verify. The point is not that those controls are known to be missing, but that CORE3’s public-source assessment could not confirm their existence within its stated scope.
Assessment boundary
CORE3 confirmed that its Centrifuge profile is a project- and protocol-level assessment. This covers publicly available information about the Centrifuge protocol and ecosystem, including the official website, application and code repositories, the CFG token contract, documentation, and public communications.
However, it is not an issuer-level assessment, nor does it evaluate individual Centrifuge pools, tokenised assets, products, or their respective issuers. This distinction is important when discussing the project assessment alongside regulated investment funds built on Centrifuge.
Regulated funds must be treated separately.
Anemoy describes itself as an asset manager built on the Centrifuge protocol. RWA.xyz describes JTRSY as a British Virgin Islands professional fund, which is licensed by the BVI Financial Services Commission. Janus Henderson acts as the sub-investment manager. Its records for JAAA also list the fund separately from the Centrifuge protocol and identify Janus Henderson as the manager.
However, these fund-level facts do not answer CORE3’s protocol-level questions. Similarly, the CORE3 score does not negate the funds’ regulatory status or constitute an assessment of their underlying assets. These two levels address different due diligence issues and should remain distinct.
Where the concentration sits
On 27 July 2026, RWA.xyz showed $880.9 million for JTRSY and $690.7 million for JAAA. Together, these two products represented around $1.57 billion — roughly 95% of the $1.65 billion in distributed asset value shown for Centrifuge on the platform page at that time.
The same live pages showed 28 JTRSY holders and 35 JAAA holders. These are on-chain token-holder counts reported by RWA.xyz. These figures should not be interpreted as indicating 63 beneficial owners, nor do they suggest that 63 parties control the underlying fund assets. Custodial, omnibus, wrapper, contract, and cross-chain structures can result in a materially different address count from the actual number of investors.
While the concentration is still relevant, it is narrower than a wallet-control claim would suggest. It shows that, at the time of the snapshot, most of the platform’s value was concentrated in two products. For an institutional reviewer, this makes the legal structure, service-provider dependencies, custody arrangements, reporting, and redemption controls around these products especially important. This does not prove that the concentration is unsafe.
Conclusions of an external risk team
The relevant gap is the difference between the information available in public sources and the evidence required by an external reviewer to conduct their own assessment. While public disclosure can reduce diligence friction, institutional decisions are not limited to public webpages, as they may also rely on private documents and direct verification.
Centrifuge’s adoption record, the regulated structures of the Anemoy funds, and CORE3’s project score can all be true simultaneously. The most defensible interpretation of CORE3’s work is not that Centrifuge or the funds are unsafe. Rather, it is that CORE3’s public-source model did not address every control within its stated project-level scope.
Additional verifiable evidence could change that assessment. Until then, the score remains a CORE3 model output, not an IC News rating, credit opinion, or investment advice.
Sources for factual review
CORE3 and RWA.xyz pages contain live data. Values in the article are tied to the dates stated in the text; the linked pages may display newer figures when opened.
CORE3 — Centrifuge profile — PoL score, grade, rank and project-level profile data.
CORE3 — Project methodology — PoL framework, metric categories and grade bands.
RWA.xyz — Centrifuge platform — Dated platform-level distributed asset data.
RWA.xyz — JTRSY — Fund description, value, holder data and regulatory context.
RWA.xyz — JAAA — Fund description, value, holder data and manager information.
Centrifuge — Coinbase announcement — Strategic investment and tokenization-infrastructure designation.
Centrifuge — Ethena announcement — Strategic tokenization partnership and allocation to JAAA.
Centrifuge — NYLIM announcement — NYLIM’s first tokenized offering on Centrifuge.
Dmytro Zaporozhchenko — LinkedIn — CORE3 role and published title.
