OPEN Ticketing Ecosystem OPN

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of recent milestone delivery data, development continuity score of 0.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?Lack of recent upgrade delivery data, development continuity score of 0.Weight 30%No definitive data available · 0 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of pending delivery milestone data.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

History Extension Record?There is a lack of historical delay records.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?The project is deployed on multiple mature public blockchains and relies on their consensus mechanisms.Weight 30%Reliance on underlying chain consensus (PoS/PoH) · 70 / 100

Main network years of operation?The main network of the project has been operating for a short time and is still in its early stages.Weight 15%About 2 years · 50 / 100

Recent upgrades?There is a lack of recent upgrade quality data, making it impossible to assess them.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

Client Diversity?As a multi-chain token, its client diversity depends on the underlying public chain.Weight 20%Relying on the diversity of underlying chain clients · 70 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?Lack of a clear mechanism for token destruction or deflation.Weight 30%No explicit deflation mechanism · 0 / 100

Inflation rate?Contracts have rights to issue additional shares and carry high inflation risks.Weight 25%Additional issues available (internal identifier=1) · 0 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?No explicit token staking or lock-up mechanisms were found.Weight 25%No staking/lock-up · 0 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?Despite the maximum supply, the contract can be issued additionally, with an uncertain upper limit.Weight 20%There is a risk of additional issuance · 0 / 100

Core Development Team?Limited disclosure of core development team information, insufficient activity data.Weight 30%Limited team information · 30 / 100

Governance mechanisms?There are certain governance mechanisms, but specific details require further evaluation.Weight 25%There is a governance mechanism · 83 / 100

Financial Transparency?Transparency of funds is acceptable, but specific usage needs continued attention.Weight 25%Medium transparency of funds · 83 / 100

Concentration of key people?Token holdings are highly concentrated, posing risks of centralization.Weight 20%Highly concentrated (72.43%) · 10 / 100

Active Address?The number of active addresses is relatively low, and user engagement needs improvement.Weight 30%There are relatively few active addresses · 9.25 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?The project has been deployed on multiple mainstream public chains, with broad ecosystem coverage.Weight 25%4. Chains · 80 / 100

DeFi TVL?Lack of DeFi TVL data for the project itself makes it impossible to evaluate.Weight 25%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

Developer community?Lack of active developer community data, GitHub repository is empty.Weight 20%Low developer activity · 0 / 100

Historical Major Failure?The contract has additional issuance rights, posing significant security risks.Weight 25%There is leakage of additional issuance permissions · 0 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?There is a lack of clear regulatory guidance, and the overall regulatory environment in the industry is rather cautious.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 50 / 100

Sec Attitude?The token's characteristics may trigger SEC scrutiny of its securities attributes.Weight 30%called “correct sequence of measures”. · 30 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?Lack of data on client bug frequency makes it impossible to evaluate.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 0 / 100