Smart contract and licence alignment: what the decision maker looks at
Tokenised rights sit at the intersection of a legal permission and a piece of running code. Where the underlying facts must be established from official sources rather than assumed, the review follows the same discipline used in Factual reports on official sources explained. This page covers one recurring checkpoint: the moment a smart contract is checked against the licence it is meant to serve.
What alignment review actually checks
Alignment review checks whether the contract's executable logic matches the licence conditions attached to the tokenised right. A decision maker reads transfer restrictions, redemption triggers, and function permissions against the licence scope. Mismatches surface most often at these three points. The review does not certify code quality; it confirms that the legal permission and the executable logic agree.
Why mismatches matter in practice
A contract that allows a transfer the licence prohibits creates a gap the counterparty can exploit later. The gap does not close itself once the token has been issued. If reserves or backing assets are involved, the timing of evidence becomes part of the same review, and the deadline attached to that evidence runs independently of the alignment check — see Reserves must be evidenced token issuance the deadline that. Once a transaction has executed on-chain, reversing it is rarely a technical option; it becomes a dispute about who bears the consequence.
Stages and timing
| Stage | What happens | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|
| Document collection | Licence terms, contract source, deployment record are gathered | Days 1–3 |
| Function-by-function read | Each callable function is matched to a licence clause | Days 2–7 |
| Gap list | Mismatches are listed with the clause and function that conflict | Day 5–8 |
| Decision point | Fix the contract, restrict the licence, or accept the gap in writing | Day 7–10 |
| Sign-off or escalation | Either alignment is confirmed, or the matter moves to the supervisor or counterparty | Day 10 onward |
The point of no return sits at the decision point. Once a gap has been accepted in writing rather than fixed, unwinding that acceptance later is far harder than raising it before sign-off.
What to do
- Collect the licence document and the contract source before the review starts.
- List every function that can move, mint, or burn the tokenised right.
- Match each function to the licence clause that permits or restricts it.
- Flag any function with no matching clause; do not assume silence means permission.
- Route unresolved gaps to the person who signed the licence, not to the developer alone.
- Record the sign-off decision in writing before the contract goes live.
Who decides
The person who signed the licence, or their authorised delegate, makes the final call on whether a gap is acceptable. Where the tokenised right is tied to a pledged or encumbered asset, the same question can surface from the asset side before the review starts — see Asset report before a right is pledged. A developer can identify a mismatch. A developer cannot decide it is acceptable.
Two common forks
If the licence is silent on a function the contract already performs, the decision maker treats the silence as a gap, not as permission, and escalates before launch. If the counterparty disputes the match after the contract is live, the dispute moves to whichever forum the licence or the underlying agreement names, and the on-chain record becomes evidence rather than a self-executing answer.
What this review does not cover
This checkpoint does not certify smart contract security, audit code for bugs, or set a price for the work. It does not decide whether the token itself is lawfully issued — that question sits earlier in the file. For a related checkpoint on how the same record is treated once it exists both on-chain and off-chain, see How on-chain and off-chain recordal tokenised rights what the.
Sources and limits
This page describes a procedure, not a set of citable provisions; no article or regulation number is given here because the underlying national file for this checkpoint is not yet complete. Where the counterparty is a debtor located in Lithuania, the factual picture on that side is built the same way a routine debtor check is built — see Debtor in Lithuania. If the dispute later involves a supervised outsourcing arrangement, the review here connects into a separate line of work — see When outsourcing is challenged by the supervisor in detail once that scenario becomes relevant.
What we do not do here
We do not audit source code for vulnerabilities, and we do not price the review on this page. Reach out and a partner responds within minutes during working hours; a scope and price follow within one working day.
FAQ
How long does smart contract and licence alignment take in practice?
A first pass typically runs seven to ten working days once the licence and the contract source are both available. Complex function sets or multiple licence amendments extend that window.
Which documents are needed to start?
The current licence document, the deployed contract source or verified bytecode, and a list of who can call which function. Earlier draft versions of the licence help but are not required to begin.
What happens if the other side does not respond?
Non-response does not pause the deadline attached to the underlying obligation. The decision maker documents the outreach attempt and proceeds on the assumption that the gap remains open until confirmed otherwise.