Propbase PROPS

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of a public roadmap and extremely low development activity.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 10 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?There have been no significant upgrades or deliveries recently, and development activities have stalled.Weight 30%&None · 5 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of public milestones and very low development activity.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 15 / 100

History Extension Record?There is no public record, but the project is relatively new.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 15 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?Based on a mature PoS mechanism, it offers high security.Weight 30%PoS (Proven) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has been running for a relatively short time but has stabilized.Weight 15%About 2.2 years · 70 / 100

Recent upgrades?Lack of publicly available up-to-date escalation information and quality assessments.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 50 / 100

Client Diversity?Lack of public data on client diversity.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 50 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?There is a lack of a clear deflationary mechanism, and the logic of demand is weak.Weight 30%No obvious mechanism is found · 20 / 100

Inflation rate?Contracts have rights to issue additional shares and carry high inflation risks.Weight 25%There is a risk of additional issuance · 5 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?Lack of clear staking data and high token concentration.Weight 25%Insufficient data / High concentration · 20 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There is a supply cap, but contracts can issue additional shares, though the cap is not absolute.Weight 20%1.2 billion (with additional issuance risk) · 30 / 100

Core Development Team?Core team members have strong backgrounds and entrepreneurial experience.Weight 30%The team has a strong background · 70 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Project governance is relatively centralized, with average transparency.Weight 25%Centralized Governance · 40 / 100

Financial Transparency?Transparency of funds is average, with publicly available financing information.Weight 25%Average · 60 / 100

Concentration of key people?There are additional permissions, but the concentration of permissions is acceptable.Weight 20%Normal · 50 / 100

Active Address?High number of active addresses and good user engagement.Weight 30%High · 99 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?It has been deployed across multiple chains and has certain cross-chain potential.Weight 25%Multi-chain deployment (2+) · 80 / 100

DeFi TVL?The project's TVL is relatively small but has a certain scale.Weight 25%$1.08 million (relatively small) · 60 / 100

Developer community?Lack of public developer community data leads to low development activity.Weight 20%Insufficient data / low activity · 30 / 100

Historical Major Failure?There are serious contract risks and potential security hazards.Weight 25%No public record · 0 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?RWA project regulation is complex, with a lack of compliance data.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 0 / 100

Sec Attitude?RWA projects are easily regarded as securities by the SEC, with an unclear stance.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 0 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?There is a lack of public data and serious contract risks.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 0 / 100