MagicCraft MCRT

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of near-term roadmap delivery data makes it impossible to assess on-time delivery rates.Weight 35%to be on the low side · 20 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?Recent development activity is insufficient, and upgrades may be delivered less frequently.Weight 30%Somewhat less · 20 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?There is a lack of publicly available pending delivery milestone information, making accurate assessment impossible.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

History Extension Record?Historical deferral record data is lacking and cannot be evaluated.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 40 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?Based on a mature PoSA consensus mechanism, balancing performance and decentralization.Weight 30%PoSA (Proven) · 85 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has been running for a long time, accumulating operational experience and stability.Weight 15%About 4.5 years · 75 / 100

Recent upgrades?There is a lack of publicly available code data on recent upgrades, making it impossible to assess quality.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 10 / 100

Client Diversity?As an application layer token, client diversity mainly depends on the underlying chain.Weight 20%Not applicable (depends on the underlying chain) · 60 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?There is a token burn mechanism, but its strength is average, with limited impact on deflation.Weight 30%Presence (Moderate Intensity) · 58.6 / 100

Inflation rate?There are still a large number of tokens to be unlocked, and there is moderate to high inflationary pressure.Weight 25%Presence (Middle-Advanced) · 30 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?There is a lack of clear data on staking or lock-up rates, and the known lock-up ratio is extremely low.Weight 25%Low (insufficient data) · 20 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There are clear supply caps that contribute to long-term value stability.Weight 20%10 billion · 90 / 100

Core Development Team?The core team has an average background and lacks records of public development activities.Weight 30%Moderate team background · 62.1 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Governance processes are highly transparent, but projects remain relatively centralized.Weight 25%Centralized governance (transparent processes) · 85 / 100

Financial Transparency?Transparency in fund management and proposal voting is high.Weight 25%Relatively high · 85 / 100

Concentration of key people?There is a lack of a multi-signature mechanism, and the concentration of power among key figures is high.Weight 20%Slightly high · 40 / 100

Active Address?A high number of daily active addresses indicates good user engagement.Weight 30%Relatively high · 93.9 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?Mainly deployed on BNB Chain, with relatively low cross-chain ecosystem and interoperability.Weight 25%Single Chain (BNB Chain) · 10 / 100

DeFi TVL?The project is not a DeFi protocol and has very low or unsuitable TVL.Weight 25%Not applicable (very low) · 20 / 100

Developer community?Lack of public developer community activities and code contributions.Weight 20%Less active (less active) · 10 / 100

Historical Major Failure?The contract has a blacklist function, posing potential security and trust risks.Weight 25%Presence (Blacklist Function) · 20 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Lack of regulatory compliance data, overall regulatory attitude is cautious.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 20 / 100

Sec Attitude?Lacking SEC compliance data, the SEC's stance may be more cautious.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 20 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?The security score audit shows code security and moderate operational resilience.Weight 15%Normal · 70 / 100