KAITO KAITO

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of publicly available near-term roadmap delivery data.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?There is a lack of publicly available information on recent upgrade deliveries.Weight 30%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of public, clear pending delivery milestones.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 30 / 100

History Extension Record?Lack of public records of historical extensions.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 30 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?It inherits the Ethereum PoS mechanism and has high security.Weight 30%PoS (Inherited from Ethereum) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has been running for a short time but is now running stably.Weight 15%About 1.3 years · 60 / 100

Recent upgrades?There is a lack of publicly available details of recent technological upgrades.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 50 / 100

Client Diversity?As an L2 token, direct client diversity does not apply.Weight 20%Not applicable (L2 tokens) · 70 / 100

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

Inflation rate?The circulating supply is far below the total supply, resulting in a large number of unlocks.Weight 25%High (large amount to be unlocked) · 20 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?Lack of public staking or lock-up data.Weight 25%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There is a clear fixed supply cap.Weight 20%1 Billion (Fixed) · 100 / 100

Core Development Team?Core team members are publicly disclosed and receive support from well-known venture capitalists.Weight 30%Openness and transparency (VC supported) · 85 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Project governance is relatively centralized and team-led.Weight 25%Centralization (Team Leadership) · 70 / 100

Financial Transparency?Financing information is disclosed, and the funds are highly transparent.Weight 25%High (disclosed) · 75 / 100

Concentration of key people?Although contract authority is not clearly centralized, governance is centralized.Weight 20%Medium (Centralized Governance) · 50 / 100

Active Address?Active address data performed decently.Weight 30%Insufficient data · 70 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?Currently, it is mainly deployed on the Base chain, with a single ecosystem.Weight 25%1 (Base) · 40 / 100

DeFi TVL?The project itself is not a DeFi protocol, so the TVL data is insufficient.Weight 25%Insufficient data (L2 TVL is relatively high) · 30 / 100

Developer community?Lack of public GitHub developer activity data.Weight 20%Insufficient data (GitHub missing) · 20 / 100

Historical Major Failure?No major safety incident records at the agreement level.Weight 25%None (social media has been hacked) · 80 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Lack of clear regulatory stance, presumed neutral.Weight 30%Insufficient data (neutral assumption) · 50 / 100

Sec Attitude?Lack of clear SEC stance, presumed non-securities.Weight 30%Insufficient data (non-securities presumption) · 50 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?Lack of data on client bug frequency, but code auditing is good.Weight 15%Insufficient data (audited well) · 70 / 100