ON ONLIVE
ON leads with team governance and economic models, with security and compliance remaining the main focus and currently holding an E+ rating.
Rating updated 2026-08-04
E+17.34 / 100
Sector Rank #165 · Global Rank #1847
Overall Rating
E+ · 17.34 / 100Roadmap Delivery
30
Tokenomics
36.25
Team Governance
40.4
Market Ecosystem
2.65
Security & Compliance
0
Overall Score
17.34
ON overall rating E+ (total 17.34), ranking high in team governance, economic model, and roadmap delivery across six dimensions. The main point of deduction is safety compliance (0 points)—mainly affected by regulatory compliance (0 points), multiple-entry ratio (0 points), and other sub-items.
Rating Team Conclusion: "ON has relative advantages in team governance, economic models, and roadmap delivery, but its current shortcomings are focused on security and compliance." " It is recommended to observe cautiously and not use it as a core configuration basis for now.
Six-Dimension Rating Breakdown
Roadmap Delivery
30/100Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of public milestone data makes it impossible to assess on-time delivery rates.Weight 35%30 / 100 · 30 / 100
Last 4 upgrades achieved?Lack of recent upgrade delivery records makes it impossible to assess achievement.Weight 30%30 / 100 · 30 / 100
Milestones to Deliver?Lack of public milestone data makes it impossible to assess pending delivery.Weight 20%30 / 100 · 30 / 100
History Extension Record?Lack of historical delivery data makes it impossible to assess delay records.Weight 15%30 / 100 · 30 / 100
Technical Implementation
59/100Consensus Mechanism?Based on a mature proof-of-stake mechanism, it offers high security.Weight 30%85 / 100 · 85 / 100
Main network years of operation?The mainnet has a relatively short runtime and its stability needs to be verified over time.Weight 15%40 / 100 · 40 / 100
Recent upgrades?There is a lack of recent upgrade quality data, making it impossible to assess their impact.Weight 35%50 / 100 · 50 / 100
Client Diversity?Lack of client-side diversity data makes it impossible to assess the degree of decentralization.Weight 20%50 / 100 · 50 / 100
Tokenomics
35.5/100Deflationary Mechanism?There is demand logic, but data on the strength of deflationary mechanisms is insufficient.Weight 30%40 / 100 · 40 / 100
Inflation rate?The circulating supply is far below the total supply, indicating significant potential inflation.Weight 25%20 / 100 · 20 / 100
Staking rate/position lock-up rate?The proportion of pledged or locked positions is extremely low, resulting in high market liquidity.Weight 25%10 / 100 · 10 / 100
Supply Upper Limit?There is a clear supply cap that helps with long-term value.Weight 20%80 / 100 · 80 / 100
Team Governance
40.25/100Core Development Team?Core team background and VC endorsement scores are relatively low.Weight 30%35 / 100 · 35 / 100
Governance mechanisms?Governance mechanisms are centralized, transparency is average, and it is not a decentralized project.Weight 25%40 / 100 · 40 / 100
Financial Transparency?The fund transparency score is moderate and needs improvement.Weight 25%55 / 100 · 55 / 100
Concentration of key people?The top ten crypto-holding addresses are highly concentrated and face centralization risks.Weight 20%30 / 100 · 30 / 100
Market Ecosystem
2.75/100Active Address?The number of daily active addresses is extremely low, and user engagement is severely lacking.Weight 30%5 / 100 · 5 / 100
Ecological chain/L2 quantity?The ecosystem mainly relies on Polygon, with low cross-chain integration.Weight 25%5 / 100 · 5 / 100
DeFi TVL?The project is not DeFi and lacks relevant TVL data.Weight 25%0 / 100 · 0 / 100
Developer community?Developer community activity is extremely low, and code updates are stagnant.Weight 20%0 / 100 · 0 / 100
Security & Compliance
0/100Historical Major Failure?There is a backdoor code risk, and the security rating is extremely low.Weight 25%0 / 100 · 0 / 100
Regulatory Attitude?There is a lack of clear regulatory stance, and the project faces serious safety risks.Weight 30%0 / 100 · 0 / 100
Sec Attitude?The lack of clear SEC stance and the project poses serious security risks.Weight 30%0 / 100 · 0 / 100
Client Bug Frequency?Lack of data on client bug frequency and serious security risks in the project.Weight 15%0 / 100 · 0 / 100
E+ Peer Comparison
Export CSV| ONE+ · 17.34 |  Main Street USDE+ · 19.99 |  SubQuery NetworkE+ · 19.98 |  GoGoPoolE+ · 19.98 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 17.34 | 19.99 | 19.98 | 19.98 |
| Roadmap Delivery | 30 | 37.5 | 30 | 37.5 |
| Technical Implementation | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Tokenomics | 36.25 | 0 | 1.56 | 28 |
| Team Governance | 40.4 | 30 | 52.8 | 68.32 |
| Market Ecosystem | 2.65 | 45.95 | 36.53 | 1.02 |
| Security & Compliance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Discussion · Comments
No comments yet.