Bio Protocol BIO

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of publicly available near-term roadmap delivery data.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 30 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?There have been two clear recent protocol upgrades.Weight 30%Achieved by 2 upgrades · 50 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of publicly available milestone information to be delivered.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 30 / 100

History Extension Record?There have been records of delays in team token unlocks.Weight 15%There is a token unlock delay · 50 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?As a multi-chain token, it relies on the underlying public chain consensus mechanism.Weight 30%There is no independent consensus mechanism · 50 / 100

Main network years of operation?The main network operation time of the project is relatively short.Weight 15%About 1.4 years · 40 / 100

Recent upgrades?Recent upgrades lack specific quality data.Weight 35%dvaluechain v.1.0 (2026-03) · 60 / 100

Client Diversity?As tokens, client diversity depends on the underlying public chain.Weight 20%Relying on the underlying public blockchain · 80 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?There is a token burn mechanism, but the contract can issue additional tokens.Weight 30%There is a token burn mechanism, but issuance can be reissued · 50 / 100

Inflation rate?There is a risk of additional issuance in the future, and specific inflation rate data is missing.Weight 25%There is a risk of additional issuance, and data is insufficient · 30 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?The contract shows a very low proportion of lock-up holders.Weight 25%Low Lock-up Rate · 20 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There is a nominal supply cap, but the contract can issue additional tokens.Weight 20%The nominal limit is 3.32 billion, but additional issuance is possible · 40 / 100

Core Development Team?Core team members have clear backgrounds and relevant experience.Weight 30%Team members are clear and have good backgrounds · 70 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Project governance mechanisms are relatively centralized, with high scores for internal processes.Weight 25%Centralized governance, but with sound internal processes · 60 / 100

Financial Transparency?Financing information is open and transparent, and fund management is highly transparent.Weight 25%Financing information is open, and capital transparency is high · 90 / 100

Concentration of key people?Contract ownership is concentrated at a single address, lacking multisig.Weight 20%Centralized ownership, no multiple-signature mechanism · 20 / 100

Active Address?The number of daily active addresses is excellent.Weight 30%High number of active addresses · 95 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?The project has been deployed on multiple mainstream public blockchains.Weight 25%Supports 4 public chains · 80 / 100

DeFi TVL?The project's total DeFi value locked is relatively low.Weight 25%Approximately $2.3887 million · 30 / 100

Developer community?Lack of public developer activity data leads to low development activity.Weight 20%Developer activity is relatively limited · 10 / 100

Historical Major Failure?The contract has additional issuance rights, posing potential security risks.Weight 25%There is a risk of additional issuance authority · 40 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Lack of clear regulatory compliance information, failure to follow VASP/KYC.Weight 30%There is controversy and low compliance · 20 / 100

Sec Attitude?Project categories may face SEC scrutiny, and the stance remains uncertain.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 20 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?Lack of publicly available data on client bug frequency.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 50 / 100