Polaris Share POLA

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of public roadmap milestone data makes it impossible to assess on-time delivery rates.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?Recent development activity trends are zero, and upgrade deliveries are poor.Weight 30%Somewhat less · 10 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of public pending delivery milestone information makes it impossible to assess.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

History Extension Record?Lack of historical roadmap delivery records makes it impossible to assess delays.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 0 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?Based on a mature Ethereum PoS consensus mechanism, it offers high security.Weight 30%PoS (Proven) · 90 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has been running for a long time, accumulating operational experience.Weight 15%About 5.3 years · 80 / 100

Recent upgrades?Recent development activity is zero, making it impossible to assess the quality of the latest upgrades.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 10 / 100

Client Diversity?Relying on the Ethereum mainnet, client diversity is good.Weight 20%Good · 85 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?Lack of a clear deflationary mechanism and weak token value capture capability.Weight 30%&None · 10 / 100

Inflation rate?The circulating supply is far below the total supply, posing significant inflationary pressure.Weight 25%High (large unlockable amount) · 15 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?The proportion of pledged or locked positions is extremely low, resulting in high market liquidity.Weight 25%Very Low · 5 / 100

Supply Upper Limit?There is a clear supply cap, and long-term inflation is manageable.Weight 20%5 billion POLA · 90 / 100

Core Development Team?The core team has an average background and lacks public records of development contributions.Weight 30%Average background, low development activity · 30 / 100

Governance mechanisms?Governance transparency is acceptable, but the degree of project centralization is relatively high.Weight 25%It is highly centralized · 40 / 100

Financial Transparency?Funding transparency is acceptable, but there is a lack of public financing information.Weight 25%Slightly above average · 75 / 100

Concentration of key people?Token holdings are highly concentrated, posing risks of centralization.Weight 20%Extremely high · 5 / 100

Active Address?Daily active addresses performed well, and user engagement was decent.Weight 30%Slightly above average · 80 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?Mainly on Ethereum, with low cross-chain and third-party integration.Weight 25%Single chain with low integration · 10 / 100

DeFi TVL?The project is not DeFi-type and does not have direct DeFi TVL data.Weight 25%No direct DeFi TVL · 0 / 100

Developer community?Developer communities are inactive, with little public development contributions.Weight 20%Inactive · 10 / 100

Historical Major Failure?There are backdoor code and permission leaks, posing extremely high security risks.Weight 25%There are backdoor codes and permission leaks · 5 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?Lack of clear regulatory information, overall crypto market oversight is becoming stricter.Weight 30%Somewhat cautious · 40 / 100

Sec Attitude?Lacking a clear stance from the SEC, most tokens face disputes over their securities status.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