Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenised Funds
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- kaio.xyz
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 41 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
KAIO
Tokenised fund feeders
Tokenised Funds
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 tokenised funds in the published ranking
41
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is KAIO right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What you own2/10 here; Apollo Diversified Credit Fund (ACRED) scores 4
- Redemption mechanics2/10 here; ADDX scores 5
- Fees vs the cheapest route1/10 here; Blockchain Capital BCAP scores 3
- Open to you3/10 here; ADDX scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best tokenised fund shows where it lands for you.
What will KAIO cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is KAIO?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to KAIO
Compare all 4- 4ADDX15 points above · stronger on redemption mechanics (5 against 2)56
- 6Blockchain Capital BCAPLevel on score · stronger on fees vs the cheapest route (3 against 1)41$250
- 7Apollo Diversified Credit Fund (ACRED)Level on score · stronger on what you own (4 against 2)41
For your setup
Find out if KAIO fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where KAIO lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best tokenised fundNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why KAIO ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (6.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
302+1.924.09#6/7Loading evidence…
262+1.665.010#6/7Loading evidence…
241+0.773.09#7/7Loading evidence…
203+1.923.08#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−15behind ADDX, #4
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 41 and stays #5
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of KAIO’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
What you own and against whom 2 → 0 on its ladder · Blockchain Capital BCAP passes it−241#5 → #6
Redemption mechanics 2 → 0 on its ladder · Blockchain Capital BCAP passes it−241#5 → #6
Who can subscribe 3 → 0 on its ladder · Blockchain Capital BCAP passes it−341#5 → #6
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What you own and against whom — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Redemption mechanics — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who can subscribe — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- NO published fee schedule — the platform layer is unknown before onboarding
- You own a FEEDER interest; the branded manager disclaims operating it
- Monthly liquidity on the SCOPE, VOLT, MACRO and MCAS funds, with notice periods, minimum withdrawal amounts and lock-ups disclosed only in-app
- Small: just under $100M AUM as of April 2026
Competitive position
Where KAIO leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#6 / 74.7 of 30 · best 21.7
Friction#2 / 72.7 of 10 · best 7.3
Trust record#5 / 73.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#1 / 79.7 of 18 · constant here
Where KAIO leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- What you own and against whom#6 / 7
- Redemption mechanics#6 / 7
- Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent#7 / 7
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Blockchain Capital BCAP#6 of 7 · score 41 · same score
KAIO leads on
- What you own and against whom2 vs 1
- Redemption mechanics2 vs 1
- Who can subscribe3 vs 1
Blockchain Capital BCAP leads on
- Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent3 vs 1
Largest single reason KAIO is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: KAIO has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Apollo Diversified Credit Fund (ACRED)#7 of 7 · score 41 · same score
KAIO leads onNo scored criterion
Apollo Diversified Credit Fund (ACRED) leads on
- What you own and against whom4 vs 2
- Redemption mechanics3 vs 2
- Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent3 vs 1
Largest single reason KAIO is ahead: availability (+20.8 display points).Scenario cost: Apollo Diversified Credit Fund (ACRED) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
ADDX#4 of 7 · score 56 · 15.0 points ahead
KAIO leads onNo scored criterion
ADDX leads on
- What you own and against whom3 vs 2
- Redemption mechanics5 vs 2
- Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent2 vs 1
Largest single reason ADDX is ahead: published criteria (+10.7 display points).Scenario cost: ADDX has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 41 · gap 42.0Why WisdomTree Digital Funds ranks above KAIO
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale; a floor bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (43.7) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden. KAIO is ahead on availability (+20.8 in its favour).
DimensionThisWisdomTree Digital FundsGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.06.0+20.8, better
Published criteria · 35% weight4.721.7−44.2, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.77.3−12.0, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.26.4−8.3, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here9.79.7same
Published criterionThisWisdomTree Digital FundsPoints
What you own and against whom · w3029−6.72, worse
Redemption mechanics · w26210−6.66, worse
Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent · w2419−6.14, worse
Who can subscribe · w2038−3.20, worse
Net4183−42.0≈
Your scenario
KAIO is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$634 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest priced$5.00 · WisdomTree Digital FundsDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with WisdomTree Digital Funds
3 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #5 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What you own and against whomstrength 2 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Redemption mechanicsstrength 2 · weight 26Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Fee load vs the cheapest equivalentstrength 1 · weight 24Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who can subscribestrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Insolvency failure (KAIO 2/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by What you own and against whom · 30%
- Regulatory failure (KAIO 3/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Who can subscribe · 20%
- Exit failure (KAIO 2/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Redemption mechanics · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Custody failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Fee load vs the cheapest equivalent (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- NO fee schedule is published, and that is itself the finding. KAIO’s docs ("How to invest in a KAIO fund", docs.kaio.xyz, read 22 October 2026): "Click on the fund card to view the selected fund's full details, including subscription timelines, fees (if applicable), and past NAV performance." Fees are shown only inside the app after onboarding; kaio.xyz (read 22 October 2026) publishes minimums ("min investment $100" for CASH, "min investment $10,000" for SCOPE, VOLT and MACRO, "min investment $100,000" for MCAS) but no fee. Cost is the underlying manager’s fee PLUS the feeder layer: subscribers receive "tokenised shares (in the KAIO fund feeder vehicle that has invested in such fund)". For calibration, Securitize’s parallel feeder into the same Hamilton Lane senior credit strategy (securitize.io/primary-market/hl-scope, read 22 October 2026) shows "Expense Ratio: 2.00%" (management fee plus operating expenses) on top of "Underlying Fund Expenses: 2.51%": treat that as indicative of the layers you cannot see.KAIO docs (fees shown in-app only) + Securitize HL SCOPE fund page (calibration) ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDKAIO docs (fees shown in-app only) + Securitize HL SCOPE fund page (calibration) ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- full
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- SEI, Ethereum, and more
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Professional and accredited investors
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Liquidity set by each fund — monthly for SCOPE, VOLT, MACRO and MCAS, daily for the CASH money fund; notice periods, minimum withdrawal amounts and lock-ups are shown only in-app.
- Availability note
- kaio.xyz (read 22 October 2026): "Any fund products referenced on this website are solely for access by onboarded Accredited Investors and/or Institutional Investors, as defined by the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (as may be amended from time to time) in Singapore, or its equivalent in other jurisdictions." and "Products displayed above may be subject to distribution restrictions and be available only to certain investors residing in eligible jurisdictions." KAIO’s disclaimers page (kaio.xyz/disclaimers, read 22 October 2026): "None of the products/services offered by KAIO are currently available to retail investors in any jurisdiction." Its press-release disclaimer adds that the document "does not constitute an offer of securities to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase in or into the United States, Canada, Australia." The list of eligible jurisdictions is not published.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with KAIO: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
11 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 41, #5 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt tokenised_funds:kaio_libre:2026.10.18:e1aa4e390f0e
Are you KAIO? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.