Usual USUAL

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of public roadmap delivery data makes it impossible to assess on-time delivery.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 10 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?There is a lack of public information on recent upgrades and deliveries, making it impossible to assess achievement.Weight 30%Insufficient data · 10 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of public information on pending delivery milestones and insufficient transparency.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 15 / 100

History Extension Record?There is a lack of public information on historical delays, making it impossible to assess them.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 12.5 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?The project relies on a mature PoS consensus mechanism, ensuring high security.Weight 30%PoS (Proven) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has a relatively short operating time and still needs time to verify its stability.Weight 15%About 1.5 years · 60 / 100

Recent upgrades?Details about recent upgrades are lacking, but the project remains active.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 65 / 100

Client Diversity?It lacks client-side diversity data, but as a multi-chain project, it has potential.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 60 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?There is an effective token burn mechanism that supports token value.Weight 30%Presence (strong) · 90 / 100

Inflation rate?There is a large amount of uncirculated supply, and short-term unlocking pressure is extremely high.Weight 25%Potential inflation present · 0 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?There is a lack of effective token staking or locking mechanisms, resulting in high liquidity risks.Weight 25%Very Low · 0 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?Token supply has a clear cap and strong long-term predictability.Weight 20%3 billion (with upper limit) · 100 / 100

Core Development Team?The team has a strong background, backed by top VCs, and delivers strong execution.Weight 30%Excellent background and multiple investments · 90 / 100

Governance mechanisms?The governance mechanism is highly transparent, and the safety score is good.Weight 25%Good (79.55/100) · 80 / 100

Financial Transparency?Financing information is open and transparent, funding is sufficient, supporting project development.Weight 25%High ($18.5 million) · 90 / 100

Concentration of key people?The core team members have moderate power concentration, and the governance mechanism has checks and balances.Weight 20%Normal · 70 / 100

Active Address?The number of active addresses is performing well and user engagement is high.Weight 30%Good (85.83/100) · 85 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?Supports multiple mainstream blockchains, with broad ecosystem coverage.Weight 25%Multi-chain (3+) · 80 / 100

DeFi TVL?The total value locked in DeFi is moderate, with significant room for growth.Weight 25%Approximately $331 million · 60 / 100

Developer community?Lack of public active developer community data, ecosystem construction needs strengthening.Weight 20%Somewhat less · 10 / 100

Historical Major Failure?There have been minor hacker attacks, so ongoing attention to security protection is necessary.Weight 25%Existence (1 time) · 40 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?As a stablecoin project, it faces a cautious stance from global regulators.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 65 / 100

Sec Attitude?The SEC's regulatory stance toward stablecoins is rather cautious, with uncertainty.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 65 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?A high security audit score indicates good code quality and security.Weight 15%Low (89.36/100) · 90 / 100