io.net IO

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?There is a lack of public, detailed roadmap delivery data, but the project is active and well-planned.Weight 35%Insufficient data, active projects · 70 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?Recent major events and product transformations are proceeding as planned.Weight 30%Good, with major milestones completed on schedule · 75 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?There is a lack of publicly detailed plans for future milestones.Weight 20%Insufficient data and limited public information · 60 / 100

History Extension Record?The project started relatively shortly, with no publicly disclosed major delay records.Weight 15%No significant delays recorded · 85 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?Based on Solana's PoH+PoS mechanism, it offers high performance but carries centralization risks.Weight 30%PoH + PoS (Solana) · 80 / 100

Main network years of operation?The main network of the project has only been operating for a short time and is still in the early stages of development.Weight 15%About 1.9 years · 65 / 100

Recent upgrades?The VMaaS transformation is an important development, but it lacks details of recent technology upgrades.Weight 35%VMaaS transformation: insufficient data on specific technical upgrades · 70 / 100

Client Diversity?Lacking io.net diverse client data and relying on the Solana ecosystem.Weight 20%Insufficient data, relying on the underlying Solana ecosystem · 60 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?There is a lack of public token burns or clear deflationary mechanisms.Weight 30%No explicit deflation mechanism · 50 / 100

Inflation rate?A maximum supply is set, and theoretically, no new tokens are minted to inflate the inflation.Weight 25%Fixed maximum supply, no coinage inflation · 90 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?A large number of tokens remain in a non-circulating state, which helps stabilize the market in the short term.Weight 25%About 56.6% is non-circulating supply · 80 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?A clear supply cap helps stabilize the token's value over the long term.Weight 20%800 million units · 100 / 100

Core Development Team?Core team members are open and transparent, with relevant industry experience.Weight 30%Team members are open and have good backgrounds · 80 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Governance mechanisms are centralized, and safety scoring ratings indicate relatively low governance intensity.Weight 25%High degree of centralization, low governance intensity · 30 / 100

Financial Transparency?The total amount of financing and investment institutions should be open and transparent.Weight 25%Financing information is public, and investors are well-known · 75 / 100

Concentration of key people?Project governance is centralized, with decision-making power possibly concentrated in a few key individuals.Weight 20%High degree of centralization, with risk of concentration · 40 / 100

Active Address?There is a lack of active address data, but the project enjoys high attention on social media.Weight 30%Insufficient data, high community attention · 65 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?The project is mainly deployed within the Solana ecosystem, with no multi-chain or L2 extensions yet.Weight 25%Mainly based on the Solana ecosystem · 70 / 100

DeFi TVL?io.net is not a DeFi project, so the TVL metric is not applicable.Weight 25%Non-DeFi projects, TVL does not apply · 50 / 100

Developer community?Lack of public GitHub repository and developer activity data.Weight 20%The GitHub repository is missing, and data is insufficient · 30 / 100

Historical Major Failure?The project has been running for a short time, and there are currently no publicly disclosed major safety fault records.Weight 25%No major public security incidents have been made public · 85 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Overall, the regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies is relatively cautious, and projects themselves lack clear regulatory risks.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 60 / 100

Sec Attitude?The SEC takes a cautious stance on most tokens, and the project faces potential securities identification disputes.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 50 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?It lacks data on client bug frequency, but the security score for the code is relatively high.Weight 15%Insufficient data, high security score code security score · 75 / 100