HOME HOME

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?There is a lack of public roadmap for delivering data, and development activity is sparse.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 30 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?GitHub development activity is sparse, with no recent update records.Weight 30%Somewhat less · 20 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of publicly available milestone information to be delivered.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

History Extension Record?Lack of public records of historical extensions.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?Inheriting Ethereum's PoS consensus mechanism, it offers high security.Weight 30%PoS (Inherited from Ethereum) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet runs for very short periods, and its stability remains to be verified.Weight 15%Less than one month · 10 / 100

Recent upgrades?GitHub development activity is sparse, with no recent update records.Weight 35%No obvious upgrades · 10 / 100

Client Diversity?Inheriting Ethereum's client diversity and ecosystem health.Weight 20%Good (Inherited Ethereum) · 80 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?No clear token deflationary mechanism was found.Weight 30%&None · 0 / 100

Inflation rate?There is a large amount of uncirculated supply, and future unlocking will lead to high inflation.Weight 25%High (many unlocks to be made in the future) · 0 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?There is a lack of clear staking or lock-up mechanisms, resulting in extremely low lock-up ratios.Weight 25%Very Low · 0 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There is a clear supply ceiling and the total is fixed.Weight 20%10 billion (fixed) · 100 / 100

Core Development Team?Core team members are public, but the scale is small and background information is limited.Weight 30%5 people (public) · 60 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Market data shows that projects are non-decentralized and governance mechanisms are not transparent.Weight 25%Centralised · 10 / 100

Financial Transparency?Initial financing information is public, but transparency in on-chain fund usage is insufficient.Weight 25%Partially transparent · 40 / 100

Concentration of key people?Contracts have a single owner's address, posing centralization risks.Weight 20%Relatively high · 30 / 100

Active Address?The number of active addresses is moderate, and user engagement is acceptable.Weight 30%Normal · 70 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?The project has been deployed on multiple mainstream chains and has good scalability.Weight 25%3. Chains · 70 / 100

DeFi TVL?Lack of DeFi TVL data for projects themselves.Weight 25%Insufficient data · 50 / 100

Developer community?GitHub development activity is sparse, and the developer community is inactive.Weight 20%Somewhat less · 20 / 100

Historical Major Failure?There is a lack of publicly available records of major safety failures in history.Weight 25%No public record · 80 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Regulatory compliance scores are extremely low, indicating potential regulatory risks.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 10 / 100

Sec Attitude?Regulatory compliance scores are extremely low, and the SEC's stance may be more cautious.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 10 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?Lack of public client code and bug frequency data.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 50 / 100