Propy PRO

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of public milestone delivery data leads to low development activity.Weight 35%Data is insufficient or undervalued · 30 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?Recent upgrades have been opaque and development activity is low.Weight 30%Data is insufficient or underestimated · 30 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of publicly available milestone information to be delivered.Weight 20%Data is insufficient / overly high · 30 / 100

History Extension Record?There is a lack of public historical delay records, and development activity is low.Weight 15%Insufficient data / Risks exist · 30 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?Based on a mature Ethereum PoS consensus mechanism.Weight 30%PoS (Proven) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The main network of the project has been running for a long time and has been market-validated.Weight 15%About 9 years · 85 / 100

Recent upgrades?Lack of recent upgrade details and quality assessment data.Weight 35%Data is insufficient or underestimated · 40 / 100

Client Diversity?As an Ethereum ecosystem token, it benefits from the diversity of Ethereum clients.Weight 20%High (Ethereum dependent) · 80 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?Lack of clear token burn or deflationary mechanisms and weak value capture capability.Weight 30%&None · 0 / 100

Inflation rate?The contract has rights for additional issuance and lacks a short-term selling pressure mitigation mechanism.Weight 25%There is a risk of additional issuance · 0 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?The lock-up ratio is extremely low, lacking long-term holding incentives.Weight 25%Very Low · 0 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There is a clear cap on token supply, but the risk of issuance affects its value.Weight 20%100 million (fixed) · 85 / 100

Core Development Team?The core team has a solid background, but there is a lack of data on development activity.Weight 30%The team has a strong background · 60 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Governance mechanisms are highly transparent, but the project is not decentralized.Weight 25%Good (Centralized) · 80 / 100

Financial Transparency?High transparency of funds and backing from well-known investment institutions.Weight 25%Relatively high · 85 / 100

Concentration of key people?The project is highly centralized, posing the risk of key personnel concentration.Weight 20%Relatively high · 50 / 100

Active Address?The number of active addresses is excellent.Weight 30%High · 100 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?Deployed on mainstream L1 and L2 platforms, with broad ecosystem coverage.Weight 25%2 chains (Ethereum/Base) · 95 / 100

DeFi TVL?Lack of DeFi TVL data, cross-chain liquidity, and average third-party integration.Weight 25%Data is insufficient or undervalued · 50 / 100

Developer community?Developer communities are low in activity and lack of public development activity data.Weight 20%Somewhat less · 10 / 100

Historical Major Failure?The contract has additional issuance rights, posing significant security risks.Weight 25%Permission to issue additional rights exists · 0 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Real estate tokens face strict regulation and a high degree of project centralization.Weight 30%Unfriendly (controversial) · 0 / 100

Sec Attitude?Real estate tokens may be considered securities by the SEC, posing extremely high compliance risks.Weight 30%Unfriendly (controversial) · 0 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?There is a lack of publicly available data on client bug frequency, and the overall security rating is low.Weight 15%Insufficient data / high risk · 0 / 100