Blockchain Capital Token · Blockchain Capital III Digital Liquid Venture Fund, LP · data cut-off 30.09.2026
1. Token Passport
| Field | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Blockchain Capital Token (BCAP) | rwa.xyz |
| Token issuer | Blockchain Capital TokenHub Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) | DefiLlama RWA |
| Underlying fund | Blockchain Capital III Digital Liquid Venture Fund, LP, evergreen | PR Newswire |
| Manager | Blockchain Capital LLC, a venture investor since 2013 | PR Newswire |
| Legal nature | an indirect fractional non-voting economic interest in the single LP interest in the fund held by TokenHub | Security Token Market |
| Offering regime | Reg D (US), Form D, CIK 0001703926 | DefiLlama RWA |
| Platform, transfer agent | Securitize (DS Protocol), also the paying agent | rwa.xyz |
| Network and standard | ZKsync Era, ERC-20 (full migration from Ethereum in December 2024) | RedStone |
| Contract address | 0x8347fffb3abeb2fae5c21b09e983bdefa1a047dc (per CoinGecko, not verified on-chain) | CoinGecko |
| Launch | offering on 04/10/2017 at $1, $10,000,000; inception 05/11/2017 | CoinDesk |
| NAV / token | $108 (rwa.xyz, 09/30/2026) | rwa.xyz |
| Assets (total value) | $973,258,070 | rwa.xyz |
| Tokens outstanding | 8,996,654.37 | rwa.xyz |
| Holders | 630 | rwa.xyz |
| Min. subscription | $20,000, 0% subscription fee | rwa.xyz |
| Investor eligibility | accredited US investors, professional investors outside the US | rwa.xyz |
| Secondary market | Securitize Markets (ATS) | Securities.io |
| Custodians | Anchorage Digital Bank N.A., Coinbase Custody | rwa.xyz |
| Administrator, auditor | Kranz & Associates, Deloitte | rwa.xyz |
| Code audits | not disclosed | - |
| Ticker collision | BCAP is also used as the abbreviation for the firm Blockchain Capital itself. Some trackers list the old Ethereum contract as BCAPV1 | Etherscan |
2. Verdict and red flags
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| In one sentence | A strong manager and regulated infrastructure, but the $973m valuation rests on the manager's own valuation, which can neither be verified nor realized on the market. |
| Score and grade | 40/100, grade C (risky) |
| Main plus | Securitize as a regulated transfer agent and ATS, custodians, administrator and auditor are named, the fund has already paid distributions. |
| Main minus | NAV growth of roughly 6x over 12 months with no public explanation, amid near-zero trading and a historical discount to NAV of up to 75%. |
| What would change the assessment | Publication of a valuation report with a portfolio breakdown, an independent appraiser, disclosure of the fee base, and an exit mechanism: redemption windows or a tender. |
| Flag | Consequence | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Transfers to the SPV disputed by the asset issuer | cap C | not applicable: a fund, not a pre-IPO stake |
| No enforceable holder claim | cap C | requires verification: the right is indirect and non-voting, offering documents are not publicly available |
| NAV is set by the operator without independent valuation | cap C | partially: the valuation is performed by the manager, an auditor is named, an independent appraiser is not disclosed. Cap applied |
| SPV or stakes not disclosed | cap B | no: TokenHub and the fund are named |
| Discrepancy in fee disclosure | -5 points | not identified, but the fee base is not disclosed |
| Sanctions, enforcement | no rating | not identified in open sources |
| NAV growth with no public explanation | 8Blocks flag | yes: from a low of $17.76 (06/03/2025) to $107.16 (05/26/2026) |
| Discrepancy in token count | 8Blocks flag | yes: 8,996,654 / 9,035,665 / 9,112,111 across different sources |
3. Legal nature and holder rights
Block weight: 20
A BCAP holder is not a partner in the fund. The sole LP in the fund is Blockchain Capital TokenHub Pte. Ltd., and the token provides an indirect, fractional and non-voting economic interest in that position.
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Legal nature described | the description is consistent across aggregators and in the old Securitize documentation. The memorandum itself is not publicly available | 2 |
| 3.2 | Direct claim on fund assets | no: the claim runs through an intermediary in Singapore, there are no direct rights to the fund's assets | 1 |
| 3.3 | Voting rights | no: the interest is non-voting | 0 |
| 3.4 | Right to distributions | yes: pro-rata economics, a distribution of $0.25 per token in USDC was paid in January 2025 | 2 |
| 3.5 | Redemption at NAV | no: the manager states explicitly that the tokens are not redeemable | 0 |
| 3.6 | TokenHub bankruptcy remoteness | the field on rwa.xyz is empty, there is no confirmation | 0 |
Sources: Security Token Market: BCAP, token rights and latest trade · PR Newswire, 12/11/2024: dividend and migration to ZKsync · rwa.xyz, BCAP page (data cut-off 09/30/2026)
Score: 5.56 out of 20 (5/18 on criteria, 27.8%) Key finding: The economic right exists and is confirmed by a payout, but the holder can neither vote, nor redeem the token, nor verify whether TokenHub is bankruptcy remote. Risk level: high
4. Ownership chain and custody
Block weight: 15
Investor → BCAP (ZKsync Era, DS Protocol) → Blockchain Capital TokenHub Pte. Ltd. → LP interest in Blockchain Capital III Digital Liquid Venture Fund, LP → portfolio: company stakes and tokens
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Intermediary named | TokenHub is named in all sources. The Singapore registry extract was not verified | 2 |
| 4.2 | Fund domicile and structure | contradictory: rwa.xyz lists a Singapore domicile and Cayman Islands dispute resolution, while SPiCE VC calls BCAP a US fund. The LP's jurisdiction is not confirmed | 1 |
| 4.3 | Portfolio composition | historical mentions only: OpenSea, Anchorage, Circle, Kraken, Securitize, Rocket Pool. No current list is available | 1 |
| 4.4 | Custodian | Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. and Coinbase Custody according to rwa.xyz, without confirmation by issuer documents | 2 |
| 4.5 | Administrator and auditor | Kranz & Associates and Deloitte according to rwa.xyz; audited financial statements are not publicly available | 2 |
| 4.6 | Reconciliation of tokens with the interest | the token count differs between sources and declines without explanation. Original contract: 9,108,859 | 1 |
Sources: rwa.xyz, BCAP page (data cut-off 09/30/2026) · DefiLlama RWA, BCAP · SPiCE VC: comparison with the BCAP model (carry 25%) · Security Token Market: BCAP, token rights and latest trade · Etherscan: original BCAP contract on Ethereum
Score: 7.50 out of 15 (9/18 on the criteria, 50.0%) Key finding: The chain is short and named, which is better than a typical pre-IPO token. The weak point: a contradictory fund domicile and a token count that changes without explanation. Risk level: medium
5. Regulation and investor eligibility
Block weight: 10
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Offering regime | Reg D, Form D filed, CIK 0001703926 | 2 |
| 5.2 | Operator licenses | Securitize through subsidiaries: broker-dealer, transfer agent, fund administrator, ATS operator. Securitize Markets, CRD 283256. Not cross-checked in FINRA BrokerCheck | 2 |
| 5.3 | Investor eligibility | U.S. accredited investors and non-U.S. professionals, KYC via Securitize | 2 |
| 5.4 | Secondary market restrictions | transfers only between verified addresses via DS Protocol. List of restricted jurisdictions not disclosed | 2 |
| 5.5 | Sanctions and enforcement | nothing found in public sources, OFAC and SEC registries not manually checked | 2 |
Sources: DefiLlama RWA, BCAP · RedStone, 05/06/2025: BCAP price feed on ZKsync · Securities.io: Securitize Markets, CRD 283256 · Securitize, 2018: BCAP migration to DS Protocol
Score: 6.67 out of 10 (10/15 on criteria, 66.7%) Key finding: The strongest block of the audit: a regulated transfer agent and ATS, eligibility enforced at the contract level. Verification against official registries is missing. Risk level: low
6. NAV valuation and oracle
Block weight: 15
The audit's key question. Until 2023 NAV was published quarterly and stayed within the $14.67–23.83 range. Aggregators now show $107–108, and in May 2025 the market valued the issue at roughly $150m. We found no public report explaining the increase.
NAV according to public sources
| Date | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 31.03.2021 | $23.83 | Securities.io |
| 31.12.2022 | $18.00 | Securities.io |
| 30.06.2023 | $14.67 | Securities.io |
| 03.06.2025 | $17.76 (aggregator low) | Bybit |
| 05.2025 | market cap around $150m | RedStone |
| 26.05.2026 | $107.16 (aggregator high) | Bybit |
| 30.09.2026 | $108 | rwa.xyz |
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | Valuation method disclosed | only a general description: NAV is calculated from the manager's valuation of the underlying assets | 1 |
| 6.2 | Who updates it and how often | previously quarterly reports, since 2025 a RedStone feed. The source of input data for the feed is not disclosed | 1 |
| 6.3 | Independent valuation | an auditor is named, there is no independent valuer | 1 |
| 6.4 | Explanation of NAV dynamics | roughly a 6x increase over 12 months with no public explanation | 0 |
| 6.5 | NAV versus transaction prices | historically the last trade was $4.50 against a NAV of $18, a 75% discount. Aggregators now show the price equal to NAV at zero volume | 0 |
| 6.6 | On-chain oracle | RedStone feed on ZKsync Era, official Securitize oracle | 2 |
Sources: DefiLlama RWA, BCAP · Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 31.03.2021 · Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 31.12.2022 · Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 30.06.2023 · Bybit, BCAP price page (min/max history) · RedStone, 06.05.2025: BCAP price feed on ZKsync · STM Newsletter: BCAP discount to NAV
Score: 4.17 out of 15 (5/18 on the criteria, 27.8%) Key finding: the $108 NAV is the manager's valuation, not a market price. The unexplained increase and the historical 75% discount make the $973m a claimed rather than a confirmed value. Risk level: high
7. Fees and net returns
Block weight: 10
Fees
| Fee | Rate | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Management fee | 2.5% per year | base not disclosed |
| Performance fee (carry) | 25% | hurdle not disclosed |
| Subscription | 0% | |
| Redemption | 0% | no redemption |
| Other fund and TokenHub expenses | not disclosed | admin, audit, Securitize |
Example: $100,000 and a doubling of the portfolio over 5 years
| Metric | A: fee on invested capital | B: fee on average NAV |
|---|---|---|
| Investment | $100,000 | $100,000 |
| Gross result over 5 years | 2x = $200,000 | 2x = $200,000 |
| Management fee over 5 years | $12,500 | $18,750 |
| Carry 25% on profit | $21,875 | $20,313 |
| To the investor | $165,625 | $160,938 |
| Net multiple | 1.66x | 1.61x |
Simplified model: no hurdle and no other expenses; in variant B the NAV grows linearly. The real result is lower by the amount of the fund's undisclosed expenses.
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | Management fee disclosed | rate present, base absent | 2 |
| 7.2 | Carry disclosed | 25% confirmed by two sources, hurdle not disclosed | 2 |
| 7.3 | Subscription and redemption | 0% and 0% | 2 |
| 7.4 | Other expenses | not disclosed | 0 |
| 7.5 | Net figures published | historical net IRR including fees and estimated carry (2020-2023) | 2 |
Sources: rwa.xyz, BCAP card (data cut-off 09/30/2026) · SPiCE VC: comparison with the BCAP model (carry 25%) · Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 12/31/2022
Score: 5.33 out of 10 (8/15 on criteria, 53.3%) Key finding: A classic 2.5 and 25 model with no hidden entry or exit fees. If the portfolio doubles, the holder receives 1.61-1.66x. The range depends on the undisclosed management fee base. Risk level: medium
8. Liquidity and exit
Block weight: 15
For a fund, instead of an IPO event, exit is possible via three routes: sale on the secondary market, distributions from the sale of portfolio positions, and liquidation of the fund. The liquidation terms of the evergreen fund are not publicly disclosed.
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 | Redemption | not provided for | 0 |
| 8.2 | Secondary market venue | Securitize Markets (ATS) | 2 |
| 8.3 | Secondary market depth | 3 active addresses over 30 days, 5 transfers, $211,093 in transfer volume per month, about 0.02% of the stated value | 0 |
| 8.4 | Discount to NAV | historically 70-75%. No current transaction price available | 0 |
| 8.5 | Distributions | one distribution of $0.25 per token (January 2025), everything was reinvested before that | 1 |
| 8.6 | Holder concentration | the breakdown by address is closed, not assessed | - |
| 8.7 | Stress scenario | in a mass sell-off, exit only via the ATS with unknown depth, no redemption | 1 |
Sources: rwa.xyz, BCAP card (data cut-off 30.09.2026) · STM Newsletter: BCAP discount to NAV · PR Newswire, 11.12.2024: dividend and migration to ZKsync · Securities.io: Securitize Markets, CRD 283256
Score: 3.33 out of 15 (4/18 on the criteria, 22.2%) Key finding: The token is liquid only on paper. It cannot be bought or sold at NAV, and the record shows that in actual transactions the discount reached three quarters of the value. Risk level: high
9. Smart Contract and Technical Rights
Block weight: 5
Privileged Roles
| Role | Rights | Verification status |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer agent (Securitize) | whitelist, freeze, forced transfer, issuance and burn | typical for DS Protocol, not verified on-chain |
| Issuer | issuance management, distributions in USDC | not disclosed |
| Oracle (RedStone) | price publication | input data source not disclosed |
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 | Compliance functions | DS Protocol: transfers only between verified addresses | 2 |
| 9.2 | Privileged roles | standard for a regulated token, specific addresses and rights not reconciled | 1 |
| 9.3 | Multisig and timelock | not disclosed | 0 |
| 9.4 | Audit of deployment code on ZKsync | not disclosed | 0 |
| 9.5 | Dependencies | ZKsync Era (L2), USDC for payouts, RedStone for price. All three named | 2 |
| 9.6 | Incidents | none found in public sources | 2 |
Sources: RedStone, 05/06/2025: BCAP price feed on ZKsync · Securitize, 2018: migration of BCAP to DS Protocol · CoinGecko: BCAP, contract address
Score: 1.94 out of 5 (7/18 by criteria, 38.9%) Key finding: The contract is regulated by design: the issuer and the transfer agent control every transfer. For a security token this is the norm, but without disclosure of roles and an audit the holder is trusting the operator. Risk level: medium
10. Underlying asset: fund portfolio
Block weight: 10
Criteria
| # | Criterion | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10.1 | Manager's track record | operating since 2013, 100+ companies and protocols | 3 |
| 10.2 | Historical returns | from $1 to $14.67-23.83 NAV by 2021-2023, net IRR 54-122% per partner publications. Not publicly audited | 2 |
| 10.3 | Current portfolio composition | not disclosed | 1 |
| 10.4 | Conflict of interest | Securitize, Circle and Matter Labs are simultaneously portfolio companies and token providers. Disclosed in the press release | 1 |
| 10.5 | Diversification | 100% crypto industry: high correlation with the crypto-asset market | 1 |
Sources: PR Newswire, 11.12.2024: dividend and migration to ZKsync · Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 31.03.2021 · Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 30.06.2023 · Crypto Briefing: Blockchain Capital's stake in Securitize
Score: 5.33 out of 10 (8/15 on criteria, 53.3%) Key finding: The manager is strong, the return history is real. The weak point: the portfolio is not disclosed, and the token's key services are provided by companies from that same portfolio. Risk level: medium
11. Scoring and risk matrix
| Block | Weight | Scores by criteria | Block score | % of weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Legal nature and holder rights | 20 | 5/18 | 5.56 | 27.8% |
| 4. Ownership chain and custody | 15 | 9/18 | 7.50 | 50.0% |
| 5. Regulation and investor eligibility | 10 | 10/15 | 6.67 | 66.7% |
| 6. NAV valuation and oracle | 15 | 5/18 | 4.17 | 27.8% |
| 7. Fees and net yield | 10 | 8/15 | 5.33 | 53.3% |
| 8. Liquidity and exit | 15 | 4/18 | 3.33 | 22.2% |
| 9. Smart contract and technical rights | 5 | 7/18 | 1.94 | 38.9% |
| 10. Underlying asset: fund portfolio | 10 | 8/15 | 5.33 | 53.3% |
| Subtotal before penalties | 100 | 39.83 | ||
| Penalties | 0 | |||
| Total | 40/100 | grade C |
8Blocks grade scale: A 80-100 reliable, B 60-79 acceptable, C 30-59 risky, D below 30 high risk. The C cap from the "NAV is set by the operator" flag coincides with the calculated grade.
Risk matrix
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | What mitigates it | Block |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAV not confirmed on sale | high | high | valuation report, independent appraiser | 6 |
| Inability to exit at a price close to NAV | high | high | market maker, redemption windows, tender | 8 |
| No voting rights and no redemption | certain | medium | LP rights in the documents, holder committee | 3 |
| Bankruptcy or error of the intermediary TokenHub | low | high | confirmation of bankruptcy remoteness, trust | 3, 4 |
| Discrepancy between the number of tokens and the share | medium | medium | reconciliation of the Securitize register with on-chain data | 4 |
| Conflict of interest with providers | medium | medium | disclosure of transaction terms | 10 |
| Failure of ZKsync, USDC or the oracle | low | medium | migration plan, backup feed | 9 |
12. Questions for the issuer and limitations
Questions for the issuer
- Publish the NAV report as of 12/31/2025 and 06/30/2026 with a breakdown of the largest positions.
- What explains the NAV growth from around $18 to $107 over 2025–2026: revaluation, realization, or a change in methodology?
- Who values the non-public stakes and locked-up tokens, and is there an independent appraiser?
- What is the base for the 2.5% management fee: NAV, invested capital, or commitments? Is there a hurdle for the 25% carry?
- What other expenses do the fund and TokenHub bear per year?
- Where is Fund III domiciled and what law applies to TokenHub and holders?
- Is TokenHub bankruptcy remote, and what would holders receive upon its liquidation?
- Why did the number of tokens decline from 9,108,859 to 8,996,654, and were any tokens bought back?
- Are regular distributions, redemption windows, or tender offers planned?
- Who holds privileged roles in the contract on ZKsync, is there a multisig, timelock, and a code audit?
- What are the terms of the fund's deals with Securitize, Circle, and Matter Labs as token providers?
Right of reply
The assessment is preliminary. Blockchain Capital and Securitize may provide documents on any item, after which the blocks are recalculated and the result is published with an update note.
Method limitations
- Only public and on-chain data as of 09/30/2026 were used. The memorandum, LPA, and the fund's audited statements were not examined.
- Data from rwa.xyz and price aggregators reflect the NAV reported by the operator, not market transactions.
- The SEC, FINRA, OFAC, and Singapore registries were not checked manually. EDGAR could not be opened automatically.
- The contract address and the roles in it are taken from secondary sources and were not verified on-chain.
- The grade describes the structure of the token, not the quality of Blockchain Capital's venture portfolio.
Sources
- rwa.xyz, BCAP page (data cut-off 09/30/2026)
- DefiLlama RWA, BCAP
- PR Newswire, 12/11/2024: dividend and migration to ZKsync
- RedStone, 05/06/2025: BCAP price feed on ZKsync
- Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 12/31/2022
- Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 03/31/2021
- Securities.io: BCAP NAV as of 06/30/2023
- STM Newsletter: BCAP discount to NAV
- Security Token Market: BCAP, token rights and latest transaction
- Bybit, BCAP price page (min/max history)
- CoinGecko: BCAP, contract address
- Etherscan: original BCAP contract on Ethereum
- Securitize, 2018: migration of BCAP to DS Protocol
- CoinDesk, 03/16/2017: offering terms
- SPiCE VC: comparison with the BCAP model (25% carry)
- Crypto Briefing: Blockchain Capital's stake in Securitize
- Securities.io: Securitize Markets, CRD 283256
Audit Results Summary
This is the first tokenized venture fund, and the infrastructure around it is mature: a regulated transfer agent, an ATS, named custodians and an auditor. The risk sits not in the wrapper but in the price. The stated $973m is the manager's valuation, which a holder can neither verify nor realize: there is no redemption, almost no trading, and in past transactions the discount to NAV reached 75%.
| Block | Score | Risk | Key conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Legal nature and holder rights | 5.6/20 | high | The economic right exists and has been confirmed by a payout, but the holder can neither vote, nor redeem the token, nor verify whether TokenHub is bankruptcy remote. |
| 4. Ownership chain and custody | 7.5/15 | medium | The chain is short and named, which is better than a typical pre-IPO token. |
| 5. Regulation and investor eligibility | 6.7/10 | low | The best block of the audit: a regulated transfer agent and ATS, eligibility enforced at the contract level. |
| 6. NAV valuation and oracle | 4.2/15 | high | The NAV of $108 is the manager's valuation, not a market price. |
| 7. Fees and net return | 5.3/10 | medium | A classic 2.5 and 25 model with no hidden entry or exit fees. |
| 8. Liquidity and exit | 3.3/15 | high | The token is liquid only on paper. |
| 9. Smart contract and technical rights | 1.9/5 | medium | The contract is regulated by design: the issuer and the transfer agent control every transfer. |
| 10. Underlying asset: the fund's portfolio | 5.3/10 | medium | The manager is strong, the return history is real. |
Strengths
- A manager active since 2013 with a real track record of returns
- Securitize: a broker-dealer, transfer agent and ATS under SEC oversight
- Custodians, administrator and auditor are named
- Subscription and exit fees are zero, a distribution has already been paid
Key risks
- Unexplained NAV growth and the absence of an independent valuation
- No redemption and almost no secondary market
- A non-voting indirect right through an intermediary without confirmed remoteness
- The token's providers are simultaneously portfolio companies of the fund
Who it suits and who it does not
| Suitable | Not suitable |
|---|---|
| An accredited investor who is buying long-term exposure to the Blockchain Capital portfolio and is prepared to hold the token with no exit horizon | Anyone who expects liquidity at NAV, uses the token as collateral at a price of $108, or treats the $973m capitalization as a market figure |
What would raise the score
- A portfolio valuation report and an explanation of the NAV growth: up to +8 points in block 6
- Buyback windows or a regular tender: up to +5 points in block 8
- Disclosure of the fee base and other expenses: up to +2 points in block 7
- Confirmation of TokenHub's bankruptcy remoteness and the fund's domicile: up to +5 points in blocks 3-4
In total, with full disclosure the result could rise to roughly 60 points, that is, to the boundary of grade B.
Re-assessment triggers
- Publication of a NAV report or a change in methodology
- A change in NAV of more than 25% over a quarter
- A new distribution, tender or buyback window
- A change of transfer agent, network or oracle
- Any regulatory action concerning the fund or Securitize
Final Conclusion
BCAP is technically and legally structured better than most RWA tokens on the market, but its price is confirmed neither by an independent valuation nor by market transactions. The outcome is therefore determined not by the infrastructure, but by the quality of the NAV and the impossibility of exiting at it.
The wrapper is more reliable than the valuation of what is inside it
The chain from the holder to the fund is short and named: investor, token, Singapore-based TokenHub, LP interest in Fund III. Issuance and the register are handled by Securitize, which operates as a broker-dealer, transfer agent and ATS operator. The custodians, administrator and auditor are named. The regulation block received the best result of the audit, 6.7 out of 10.
For the holder this means that the risk of losing the token due to a weak technical or legal framework is below the segment average. But the framework protects the right to a share, not the value of that share.
$973m is the manager's valuation, not a market value
NAV held in the range of $14.67-23.83 in 2021-2023 and around $17.76 in June 2025. By May 2026 it had grown to $107.16, roughly 6x in 12 months. We found no public report explaining this growth. The independent valuer is not disclosed, and the price oracle relays the same manager's valuation.
The growth may be justified by the realization or revaluation of large positions. But until this is disclosed, the holder and any DeFi protocol accepting BCAP as collateral rely solely on the manager's word. The NAV block received 4.2 out of 15, and it is precisely this flag that caps the grade at C.
Liquidity exists on paper, but not in transactions
There is no redemption; the manager explicitly calls the tokens non-redeemable. Over 30 days the token was moved by 3 active addresses, with transfer volume amounting to about 0.02% of the stated value. When trades on Securitize Markets did occur, they went through at a discount to NAV of up to 75%. The liquidity block received 3.3 out of 15, the worst result of the audit.
The implication for the investor: entry at a NAV of $108 does not guarantee exit at NAV. A real exit is possible through fund distributions, and there has been one in nine years, $0.25 per token.
What this means for different participants
For the holder. BCAP works as a long-term venture exposure to the Blockchain Capital portfolio for someone prepared not to sell the token for years. It does not work as a liquid asset or as collateral at a price of $108.
For the issuer. BCAP lost most of its points because of undisclosed data, not because of confirmed problems. Not a single flag points to abuse. A portfolio valuation report, an independent valuer, disclosure of the fee base and an exit mechanism could raise the total to roughly 60 points, that is, to the boundary of grade B.
For the RWA market. The BCAP case shows that regulated infrastructure does not make a token's price verifiable. The market capitalization shown by aggregators equals the issuer's NAV multiplied by the number of tokens, and without an independent valuation it remains a claim, not a market fact.
Assessment status
The assessment is preliminary and is based on public and on-chain data as of 30.09.2026. Questions for the issuer are set out in block 12. After a response from Blockchain Capital the blocks will be recalculated, and the updated grade will be published with a date note.
This material is not investment, legal or tax advice and is not a credit rating. The assessment reflects the token's structure based on public data as of 30.09.2026.
