Audit Methodology

At launch, healthy projects keep team and advisor tokens locked so insiders cannot sell into the first wave of buyers. This measures how much of that allocation is instead liquid on day one and free to be sold, which lets insiders cash out and walk away early. A lower share is safer, and foundation tokens are left out since some early foundation liquidity is normal for funding the project.

Only a fraction of the supply is actually tradeable when a token launches, and this measures how much of that initial float sits with investors. Investors usually bought in early and cheaply, so when they hold a large share of the thin launch supply they can push the price down fast. A project can still pass with a big investor allocation overall, as long as most of it stays locked at launch.

The initial float is supposed to be freely tradeable at launch. Foundation tokens usually sit with the foundation rather than being liquid, so when a large part of that float is foundation controlled, the genuinely tradeable supply is smaller than the headline float suggests. A high reading means the float has been filled with tokens that are not actually circulating.

This tracks investor control of the circulating supply across the first four years and reads whether it is trending up or down. The more of the supply investors control, the easier it is for them to move the price or swing governance votes, so a climbing trend means power is concentrating in investors instead of spreading out as it should. A low or steady control trend passes, while a rise into elevated territory is flagged, gently for a slow climb and harshly for a fast one.

This scans investor control at each of the 48 monthly checkpoints and flags every month it exceeds 30% of circulating supply. Each of those months is a window where investors hold enough of the supply to move the price or tip a governance vote on their own. The verdict is about duration: a brief breach during peak vesting is far less severe than control that stays over the line for years.

This tracks team, advisor, and foundation control of the circulating supply across the first four years and reads whether it is trending up or down. The more of the supply this group controls, the easier it is for them to move the price or swing governance votes, so a climbing trend means power is concentrating in insiders instead of spreading out as it should. A low or steady share passes, while a rise into elevated territory is flagged, gently for a slow climb and harshly for a fast one.

This scans team, advisor, and foundation control at each of the 48 monthly checkpoints and flags every month it exceeds 45% of circulating supply. The bar is deliberately harsh because many projects sit near it, and control above 45% means a small group holds close to a majority of everything circulating, enough to move the price or carry a governance vote on its own. The verdict is about duration: a brief breach during peak vesting is far less severe than one that drags on for years.

This is the slice of the entire supply set aside for the wider community through airdrops, rewards, ecosystem programs, and staking, with the public sale counted separately. A large community share means ownership is spread across the people who actually use the project, rather than concentrated in insiders and investors. The bigger this slice, the more the token belongs to its users, which is the goal of a fair distribution.

This is the slice of the entire token supply, once everything has vested, that is promised to investors across the seed, private, and strategic rounds. Investors are in it to sell at a profit, so a large investor allocation is mostly supply that exists to be sold onto the market over time. The smaller their share of the whole, the less built-in selling pressure the token carries.

This is the share of the entire supply held by the team and advisors who build the project. A healthy middle keeps the builders motivated and aligned with holders, while too large a share concentrates control and leaves a lot of future selling hanging over the market. Too little can mean the team has little skin in the game, so this rewards a balanced range rather than simply less.

This is the share of the entire supply held by the foundation that stewards the project. There is a healthy middle here, enough to fund development and the ecosystem for years, but not so much that one entity quietly controls the token. Both too little and too much are problems, which is why this scores a range rather than simply rewarding more.

This is the share of supply that ordinary buyers could purchase directly, through a public sale, IDO, or ICO. It is often the only point where regular people get in near the same price as insiders and investors, instead of buying later and higher from those early holders. Having any genuine public sale at all is the big step, so even a small slice beats none.

With a cap, the supply can never grow past a set maximum, so dilution has a clear ceiling. This checks whether the supply is capped or can be minted without limit, where an uncapped supply can grow forever and every new token dilutes everyone already holding. A fixed maximum is the safer structure, since open-ended minting hands the team a permanent lever over the supply.

A readable schedule resolves to the full supply with a defined end for every pool. This measures how much of the total supply the combined schedule actually reaches by its final disclosed month, and when even one pool has no disclosed finish or is left to later governance, the end of the supply is unknown and future dilution cannot be predicted. The closer the schedule lands to 100%, the more honest and predictable the dilution ahead.

The circulating float is the supply genuinely trading at launch, and the unlocked float is all the supply that is free to sell, whether or not it is on the market. Everything circulating is also free to sell, so the unlocked float is always the larger of the two, and the gap between them is phantom float, supply that is unlocked but held off the market. It usually sits in team or foundation wallets, so the unlocked float looks deeper than the supply that is really trading, while that held supply can hit the market at any time. The smaller the gap between the two floats, the more honest the launch.

This measures the share of total supply already circulating at launch. A larger launch float means later unlocks land as a smaller share of what is already trading, so each release dilutes holders less. Higher is better, since a thin launch float makes every early unlock a large shock relative to the supply on the market.

This measures the share of total supply unlocked at launch, free to sell whether or not it is circulating. A larger unlocked float means later unlocks add a smaller share to what can already be sold, so each release weighs less. Higher is better, though read it with phantom float, since an unlocked float that far exceeds the circulating float is controlled supply rather than real liquidity.

This measures how evenly monthly unlocks are spaced, as the spread of monthly unlock sizes where lower is smoother. Smooth release lets the market absorb supply steadily, month after month. Lumpy cliffs create sudden volatility and obvious points for holders to sell into, since everyone can see the big unlock coming. Lower is better.

This measures how evenly monthly unlocking is spaced, as the spread of monthly unlock sizes where lower is smoother. Smooth release lets the market absorb sell-eligible supply steadily, month after month. Lumpy cliffs create sudden volatility and obvious points for holders to sell into, since everyone can see the big unlock coming. Lower is better.

This measures the cliff before team and insider allocations start unlocking. A 12-month cliff holds insider selling back past the fragile launch window, when the market is thin and the price moves on little volume. A cliff under 6 months pushes that selling into the earliest, most fragile days of trading, when the float can least absorb it. A longer cliff is safer.

This measures how long team and insider allocations take to fully vest, start to finish. A 36-month or longer schedule spreads insider selling across years and signals a long-term commitment to the project. Anything under 24 months releases insider supply quickly and falls short of the industry standard, concentrating future selling into a shorter window. A longer schedule is safer.

This measures Year-1 growth of the circulating float, the circulating share at month 12 against the share at launch. New supply hitting a thin early float is what drives the price down hardest, so a smaller first-year expansion is far easier for the market to absorb. Lower is better, and the early-year bar is wide because some launch growth is unavoidable.

This measures Year-2 growth, the circulating share at month 24 against the share at month 12. By the second year the launch float has had time to deepen, so the market expects inflation well below Year 1 and the bar tightens accordingly. Lower is better, since continued heavy expansion keeps diluting holders past the launch window.

This measures Year-3 growth, the circulating share at month 36 against the share at month 24. By the third year the bulk of vesting should be behind the project, so the market expects inflation down in the low tens of percent. Lower is better, and inflation still running hot this late points to a long, heavy unlock tail.

This measures Year-4 growth, the circulating share at month 48 against the share at month 36. This is the strictest year, when a healthy schedule has nearly finished releasing supply and the market expects inflation in the low teens or below. Lower is better, and high fourth-year inflation means dilution is still landing years after launch.

This measures the circulating float at year 4 against the float at launch, so it is the total growth of trading supply across the whole four years, not any single year. A schedule can look mild year by year yet still multiply the launch float several times over by the end, and that full-span growth is the dilution early holders actually carry. Lower is better.

This measures how evenly emission is spread across Years 1 to 4 on a 0 to 1 scale, where 1 is perfectly even and 0 means it is all bunched into one year. Even release lets the market absorb supply steadily, while a single shock year of heavy unlocks creates a predictable price drop. More even is better, since it avoids any single overhang.

This adds up the part of every monthly supply shock that rises above the 15% threshold, the share too large for the market to absorb. A schedule rarely has just one of these spikes, so summing them across the whole schedule makes every spike count, instead of letting a project bury repeated large unlocks behind a single calm month. Even a small total is already a warning, because oversized unlocks do outsized damage. Lower is better.

This adds up the part of every monthly supply shock that stays below the 15% threshold, the share small enough for the market to absorb. No single one of these releases is big enough to notice, so the only way to see the pressure they build is to add them up across the whole schedule. Together they become a slow, grinding source of dilution that wears holders down, the routine drag no single month would flag. Lower is better.

This measures the biggest one-month jump in circulating supply, the worst single dilution event in the schedule. Large one-off shocks create predictable price drops as the market front-runs and absorbs them, and a single month that adds a large share of the float can overwhelm even a deep market. Lower is better.

This measures Year-1 growth of the unlocked supply, the unlocked share at month 12 against the share at launch. New supply becoming sell-eligible against a thin early base is what hangs hardest over the price, so a smaller first-year expansion is far easier for the market to absorb. Lower is better, and the early-year bar is wide because some launch growth is unavoidable.

This measures Year-2 growth, the unlocked share at month 24 against the share at month 12. By the second year the sell-eligible base has had time to widen, so the market expects inflation well below Year 1 and the bar tightens accordingly. Lower is better, since continued heavy expansion keeps adding to the overhang past the launch window.

This measures Year-3 growth, the unlocked share at month 36 against the share at month 24. By the third year the bulk of vesting should be behind the project, so the market expects inflation down in the low tens of percent. Lower is better, and inflation still running hot this late points to a long, heavy unlock tail.

This measures Year-4 growth, the unlocked share at month 48 against the share at month 36. This is the strictest year, when a healthy schedule has nearly finished releasing supply and the market expects inflation in the low teens or below. Lower is better, and high fourth-year inflation means dilution is still landing years after launch.

This measures the unlocked supply at year 4 against the unlocked float at launch, so it is the total growth of sell-eligible supply across the whole four years, not any single year. A schedule can look mild year by year yet still multiply the launch float several times over by the end, and that full-span growth is the dilution hanging over holders. Lower is better.

This measures how evenly unlocking is spread across Years 1 to 4 on a 0 to 1 scale, where 1 is perfectly even and 0 means it is all bunched into one year. Even release lets the market absorb sell-eligible supply steadily, while a single shock year of heavy unlocks creates a predictable wall of selling. More even is better, since it avoids any single overhang.

This adds up the part of every monthly unlocked shock that rises above the 15% threshold, the share of newly sell-eligible supply too large for the market to absorb. A schedule rarely has just one of these spikes, so summing them across the whole schedule makes every spike count, instead of letting a project bury repeated large unlocks behind a single calm month. Even a small total is already a warning, because the unlocked schedule is a leading indicator of selling pressure to come. Lower is better.

This adds up the part of every monthly unlocked shock that stays below the 15% threshold, the share of newly sell-eligible supply small enough for the market to absorb. No single one of these releases is big enough to notice, so the only way to see the pressure they build is to add them up across the whole schedule. Together they are a steady, grinding stream of supply turning sellable that wears holders down, the routine drag no single month would flag. Lower is better.

This measures the biggest one-month jump in unlocked supply, the worst single release in the schedule. Large one-off releases create predictable sell-pressure as the market front-runs and absorbs them, and a single month that frees a large share of the supply can overwhelm even a deep market. Lower is better.

The acid test of necessity. If every instance of the token were swapped for a neutral stablecoin like USDC, would the protocol still function? A token that is irreplaceable holds load-bearing roles such as gas, security, or the native unit of account. A token USDC could cover means the token mostly exists for fundraising or speculation rather than function.

Of the token's utilities, what fraction are mandatory, meaning you must hold or use the token, versus optional and merely nice to have. A high mandatory share means most of the utility is load-bearing and creates a real demand floor. A low share means the utility is mostly optional and the demand floor is weak.

Separates demand that comes from using the product, where consuming a service requires the token, from demand that exists only because staking pays a yield. Reward-only demand is fragile because it collapses if the yield falls or emissions end, and it is circular when the rewards are token funded. Usage demand persists as long as the product is used.

Tests whether token demand is structurally tied to protocol growth. Structural means more usage mechanically requires more token, through gas, required stake, or burn on use, so demand scales with adoption automatically. Discretionary means demand grows only if the team chooses to route value to the token. Decoupled means the protocol can grow with no effect on token demand.

Maps the token to the four utility pillars, Staking and Lockup, Access and Benefits, Exchange and Spending, and Governance, and counts the pillars with at least one real sub-utility, where real means active, unsubsidized, and demand creating. Breadth across pillars matters more than raw count, since a token spread across pillars has more independent demand sources than one stacking mechanisms inside a single pillar.

Compares the token's activated utilities against how common each utility is inside the project's niche. Niche adoption rates are derived from the classifier outputs across the whole database. Being below the niche norm on a high-adoption utility its peers have is a gap, while skipping a utility that is rare in the niche is not penalized.

Measures the share of claimed utilities that are live today versus roadmap promises, to avoid crediting vaporware. Utilities that are deliberately phase deferred with a stated rationale and timeline are flagged but not penalized like an undelivered promise, while utilities that are merely planned without detail get no credit.

Grades the funding source of staking rewards. New emissions or inflation are weakest because they cause dilution and sell pressure. Pre-allocated tokenomics pools are slightly better but finite and non-revenue. A blend of inflation and revenue buybacks is mid. Pure real yield, such as stablecoin revenue or revenue-funded buyback and redistribute, is strongest because it adds no net sell pressure and scales with real usage.

Tests whether staking carries genuine economic commitment or is costless yield farming. A slashable stake or a hard lockup puts principal at risk and creates real skin in the game. A soft or short lock carries little real cost. A rewards-only claim with no lockup or slashing adds no security or commitment value.

Checks whether staking and access gates reward continued accumulation or stop at a single threshold. A binary gate gives no reason to hold beyond the minimum, since a holder at the threshold gets the same terms as one holding far more, which caps demand. Tiered or curve-based gates with escalating discounts, allocation, or fee reductions create continuous accumulation demand.

Grades the size of a gated benefit relative to the capital it ties up. A strong benefit clearly changes a rational user's decision, such as a large fee reduction, a hard capacity grant, or gated functionality the user genuinely needs. A modest benefit is a real edge that only matters to power users or at high volume. A weak benefit is cosmetic, marginal, or unquantified, so no rational user acquires the token for it.

Grades how much an outsider must touch the token to transact. A mandatory or exclusive medium forces every transactor to acquire the token, or routes every trade through it as the base pair, creating outside-in demand proportional to usage. A default but bypassable medium lets users pay in a stablecoin or have fees sponsored, so demand is elective. A freely substitutable medium means transaction volume creates almost no structural token demand.

Checks two things. Authority, whether votes bind and execute on chain rather than being advisory or captured by a small group. Scope, whether votes control meaningful economic parameters such as fees, treasury, risk, and whitelists rather than nothing that affects value. The weaker of the two dimensions sets the result. Skipped when governance is intentionally inactive.

Checks whether any token holder can create a proposal or whether proposal creation is restricted to a small group. Open creation lets any holder above a reasonable threshold propose. A technically open system whose proposal threshold is a large fraction of supply is functionally closed. Delegate systems with a meaningful number of active delegates sit in between. Team or foundation only creation means holders can only approve what insiders put forward.