ardmere

Public PoR Transparency Registry

Effective PoR Standard

Full framework: PoR Stage Framework
Current assessments: Exchange comparison

This page states ardmere’s minimum policy standard for exchange Proof-of-Reserves (PoR). It is the public reference behind the registry’s Stage ratings—not a marketing checklist, and not a substitute for reading the bound artifacts in each report.

1. Three policy principles

1.1 Stage 0 is not effective PoR

An exchange may publish summaries, reserve ratios, or user Merkle inclusion proofs and still remain Stage 0 if independent third parties cannot reproduce the global asset–liability relationship.

Policy implication: Stage 0 disclosures are transitional or observational. They must not be treated as meeting an effective PoR requirement for licensing, listing, or institutional custody decisions.

Common Stage 0 gaps include missing public wallet_address_list, wallet_ownership_proof, or global_proof; opaque trusted setup; or proof packages behind login walls.

1.2 Stage 1 is the minimum effective threshold

Effective PoR requires public, reproducible evidence on both sides of the snapshot:

Stage 1 does not mean “no risk.” It means key assertions are no longer accepted on exchange narrative alone.

1.3 PoR and traditional audit answer different questions

PoR and financial audit are complementary; neither replaces the other.

Dimension Traditional audit PoR
Core question Are financial statements fairly presented? Under a defined snapshot, are user liabilities in proof and do reserves cover that scope?
Best at Off-chain assets, internal control, going concern User-level commitments, on-chain balances, public reproducibility
Typical output Audit opinion, AUP, assurance report Artifacts, roots, proofs, verifier output

Policy implication: Regulators and institutions should use a dual-track model—financial audit for company-level assurance, PoR Stage for publicly reproducible reserve transparency. An exchange with a clean audit opinion but Stage 0 PoR has not demonstrated effective PoR.

Gap reporting rules (UNVERIFIABLE, not PASS) are defined in the methodology — §1.3.

2. Stage thresholds for policy use

Stage Effective PoR? Regulatory handling
Pre-Stage No No minimally usable PoR; cannot be described as “having PoR”
Stage 0 No Transitional disclosure only; must be labeled as relying primarily on exchange self-reporting
Stage 1 Yes (minimum) Minimum standard for effective PoR in public custody contexts
Stage 2 Best practice Long-term target: permissionless verification, anchoring, DA, business-consistent constraints

Current Stage outcomes: Exchange comparison.

Stage 1 operational requirements: methodology §7.

3. Report types that must not be conflated

Exchanges and reviewers should distinguish:

Type What it shows
Technical verification Whether Merkle/ZK/wallet/proof artifacts are reproducible
AUP / agreed-upon procedures Agreed steps executed; usually no overall assurance opinion
Limited assurance Limited scope assurance on defined procedures
Reasonable assurance / financial audit Company financial statements; may not cover PoR liability scope

“Audited” does not automatically mean effective PoR. “ZK verified” does not automatically mean Stage 1 if critical artifacts are not public.

4. How ardmere applies this standard

Every public rating follows this evidence chain:

  1. Artifact — bind to source materials (summary, wallet list, proof bundle)
  2. Hash — record digests so the report can be reproduced and checked later
  3. Verifier output — independent runs with explicit PASS, FAIL, WARN, or UNVERIFIABLE
  4. Gaps — missing or blocked artifacts stay UNVERIFIABLE, not PASS

Each registry record also:

Ratings are records, not endorsements. When marketing claims exceed public evidence, the report states the gap explicitly.