Pricing Investor Eligibility Checks for Tokenized Real-World Assets
These are proposed commercial packages, not final contractual prices: the number below comes from Solidus's own draft GTM pricing sheet, not a signed rate card, and no issuer, platform, or investor has ever been billed it. For this vertical specifically, say it even more plainly: no pilot, no deployment, and no RWA issuer customer exists. What follows is an offer design, not a case study, and the rest of this page treats it that way.
What the check is
A tokenized real-world asset, a fund unit, a piece of private credit, a real estate share, represented on-chain still has to answer an old securities question before anyone can hold or trade it: is this person an eligible investor? Accredited-investor status, jurisdiction clearance, sanctions and KYC checks all have to clear before a wallet address is allowed to receive the token. Today that check is usually run once, by whichever platform onboards the investor, and re-run, in full, at real cost, every time the same investor shows up at a different issuer or a different secondary venue. Solidus's proposal is the same credential-portability wedge applied here: the eligibility credential is issued once and reused, rather than re-checked from zero at every venue.
The proposed price
| Line item | Proposed price | Source note |
|---|---|---|
| RWA investor eligibility check | $0.25–$2.00 per event | Layer 2, vertical business-event pricing |
| Protocol floor | $0.001 per credential verification | modeled protocol/economic anchor, not a measured cost |
| Enterprise issuer/verifier plan | $50,000–$250,000/year | suggested SaaS plan band |
| Private deployment | $100,000–$500,000/year | suggested plan band, banks/funds/strategic infrastructure |
The source is explicit that for this vertical, the plan matters more than the per-event line: "enterprise issuer/verifier plan likely more important than per-event pricing," and "audit evidence has high value". An issuer running a regulated offering is buying an ongoing eligibility-and-audit relationship, not a metered API call, and the per-event number is the smaller piece of what would actually get negotiated.
The honest arithmetic
Solidus does not win on the first check. Solidus's own reference KYC Level-2 fee is $5.00, more expensive than a named incumbent's comparable first-time check, which runs roughly $1.50–$2.50. If an RWA platform only ever ran one eligibility check per investor, there would be no economic argument for switching. The case only appears once reuse enters the picture: re-verifying an already-issued credential is priced around $0.05 against an incumbent's repeat-check cost of roughly $1.50, and the break-even, the point where cumulative Solidus cost drops below cumulative incumbent cost, lands around the third check for the same person, n ≈ 2.4.
That arithmetic is imported from the general reusable-verification model, not a number this source derives specifically for RWA investor eligibility: this page will not invent an RWA-specific break-even that isn't in the pricing sheet. What can be said honestly is directional: an investor who gets eligibility-checked once and then trades across multiple tokenized-asset platforms is exactly the reuse pattern the $0.25–$2.00 line is priced against, and the more venues that investor touches, the more the economics favor not re-running KYC from scratch at each one.
What this doesn't concede away
Pricing a check is not the same as clearing the regulatory bar around who may hold a tokenized security, in which jurisdiction, under which exemption. That surface, securities law, transfer restrictions, jurisdiction-specific investor-qualification rules, is not something a pricing sheet resolves, and Solidus does not claim it has. See /why/the-regulatory-surface-we-concede for what is and isn't being claimed on the compliance side; this page prices a verification event, not a securities-law posture.
What would make this real
An actual price requires an actual counterparty: an issuer or platform willing to sign a commercial agreement, a live integration, and a first check that actually happens. None of that exists yet. Until it does, $0.25–$2.00 is a number on a pricing sheet, worth publishing for the sake of the argument it makes about reuse, not worth mistaking for an offer anyone can accept today. For what is actually running right now, see /status.