Jasmine Liquid Tokens
CC-18
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions were not found in the extracted record
inferred Credit type is listed as avoidance, but the underlying activity and quantification basis are not documented here
Transparency
missing No monitoring/verification details (periods, VVB, errors, methods) were found in the extracted record
missing Registry/public-data completeness cannot be evaluated because no evidence documents were provided
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting and greenwashing risk cannot be screened because baseline and MRV details are not available in the extracted record
inferred I-REC instruments can be used in multiple claim contexts, but eligibility/guardrails (e.g., CORSIA/CCP status) are not stated here
Documentation
missing No evidence documents were provided (0 documents used), indicating severe documentation incompleteness
missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, reducing confidence in any missing/absent fields
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project documents were provided in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline methodology, leakage assessment, and any permanence/reversal provisions cannot be checked. With no verification/monitoring reports available, there is no basis to confirm whether the avoidance claims are conservative or whether any material findings/corrective actions occurred. This results in a very low integrity score driven by evidence gaps rather than confirmed deficiencies.
Transparency
Transparency is very weak because the extracted record contains no evidence documents and no MRV details (such as monitoring period, verifier identity, or quantified uncertainty/error checks). Low extraction confidence further suggests that even if documents existed upstream, they were not reliably readable/extracted here. As a result, the project cannot be independently scrutinized from the provided materials.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is low because key over-crediting controls—baseline setting, leakage treatment, and monitoring methods—are not available in the extracted record. Eligibility signals that would reduce double-claiming/dual-channel risks (such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status) are also not stated. Without these, buyers face elevated greenwashing risk due to unverifiable claims.
Documentation
Documentation is extremely incomplete: the extracted record lists zero documents used and provides no references to a PDD, monitoring report, or verification report. The minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable, which further undermines confidence in the completeness of the extracted dataset. This warrants a near-minimum documentation score.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions to resolve. However, the absence of any evidence documents (and low extraction confidence) prevents assessment of the core quality determinants, so the overall score is driven down by lack of verifiable information. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap the transparency score after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality attributes (baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV) cannot be assessed. Given the evidence gaps and low extraction confidence, the project scores very low on transparency, claim safety, and documentation, with integrity also highly uncertain.
Project Description
Jasmine Liquidity Token is an ERC-20-compliant representation of energy attributes. All JLTs have a nominal value of 1MWh energy attributes, and each reference pool uses a different JLT. A JLT minted for deposit into pool A cannot be used to withdraw from pool B. As ERC-20 tokens, these can be used in any protocol that supports ERC-20 tokens.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing verification of baseline, additionality, and monitoring claims
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key source was poorly readable, further reducing reliability
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2023 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the core I-REC documentation set (project description, issuance/registration records, monitoring/measurement approach, and any third-party assurance) so baseline and MRV can be evaluated
- Disclose verifier/assurance details, monitoring period(s), and any quantified uncertainty/error checks, plus explicit statements on claim use/eligibility (e.g., CORSIA/CCP or other claim restrictions) to reduce double-claiming risk
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
No additionality assessment found
Permanence/reversal provisions not documented
Leakage treatment not found
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not documented
Eligibility/claim controls not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →