Taiko TAIKO

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of publicly available on-time delivery data, and recent low development activity.Weight 35%Insufficient data, low recent development activity · 20 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?No clear mainnet upgrade delivery records have been found recently.Weight 30%No clear mainnet upgrade deliveries have been made in the near term · 30 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?The project has several clear milestones awaiting delivery, including testnet and ecosystem development.Weight 20%There are multiple testnets and ecosystem milestones · 70 / 100

History Extension Record?There is a lack of clear historical delay records, but development activity data is low.Weight 15%Insufficient data may lead to hidden delays · 40 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?As a ZK-Rollup, it inherits Ethereum's security and features advanced technical solutions.Weight 30%ZK-Rollup (Ethereum-dependent) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has been running for about two years and has passed its early stages.Weight 15%About 2 years · 60 / 100

Recent upgrades?There is a lack of detailed data on the quality of the latest mainnet upgrades.Weight 35%Data is insufficient; recent activities have mostly been testnets · 50 / 100

Client Diversity?Lack of public data on client diversity poses potential centralization risks.Weight 20%Insufficient data and needs improvement · 40 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?The project lacks a clear token deflation mechanism.Weight 30%No explicit deflation mechanism · 0 / 100

Inflation rate?The circulating supply is far below the total supply, posing significant unlocking inflationary pressure.Weight 25%There is significant unlocking inflation pressure · 0 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?Unclear data on token staking or locking provides insufficient support for token demand.Weight 25%Low staking rates, unclear lock-up data · 0 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?Although there is a supply cap, other economic model factors lead to zero value capture.Weight 20%1 Billion (Fixed) · 0 / 100

Core Development Team?Core team members have strong backgrounds and have received support from multiple well-known investment institutions.Weight 30%The core team has a strong background and is supported by well-known investment institutions · 70 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Governance mechanisms are relatively transparent, but the degree of decentralization still needs further development.Weight 25%Governance transparency is high, but the degree of decentralization remains to be seen · 80 / 100

Financial Transparency?High transparency in fund usage, and financing information is open and accessible.Weight 25%High transparency of funds, and open financing information · 90 / 100

Concentration of key people?Token holdings are highly concentrated in a few addresses, posing significant centralization risks.Weight 20%Token holdings are highly concentrated · 5 / 100

Active Address?The number of active addresses is strong, indicating high user engagement.Weight 30%Active addresses performed well · 85 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?Cross-chain integration is average, with few third-party applications integrated, and the ecosystem needs expansion.Weight 25%Cross-chain integration is average, with few third-party integrations · 40 / 100

DeFi TVL?DeFi's total locked value is relatively low, and its ecosystem appeal needs improvement.Weight 25%Approximately $21.5 million (relatively low) · 30 / 100

Developer community?The community is highly focused, but developer activity has been low recently, so it should be watched.Weight 20%High community attention but low development activity · 40 / 100

Historical Major Failure?Smart contracts carry risks of backdoor code and permission leakage, triggering a red line in security ratings.Weight 25%There are risks of backdoor code and permission leakage · 0 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?There is a lack of clear regulatory stance, and the project faces significant safety risks.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 0 / 100

Sec Attitude?The SEC's stance on L2 projects remains unclear, and these projects pose significant security risks.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 0 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?Code audit coverage is high, but significant security vulnerabilities still exist, resulting in a zero rating.Weight 15%Code audit coverage is high, but there is a risk of red lines · 0 / 100