River RIVER

Roadmap On Time Delivery Rate?Lack of near-term roadmaps and on-time delivery data.Weight 35%Insufficient data · 10 / 100

Last 4 upgrades achieved?There is a lack of clear records of technical upgrade deliveries in recent times.Weight 30%Underestimated/insufficient data · 5 / 100

Milestones to Deliver?Lack of publicly available milestone information to be delivered.Weight 20%Insufficient data · 15 / 100

History Extension Record?There is a lack of publicly available historical delay records.Weight 15%Insufficient data · 20 / 100

Consensus Mechanism?As a protocol layer, its security depends on the underlying public chain.Weight 30%Protocol layer, relying on underlying chain consensus · 70 / 100

Main network years of operation?The mainnet has been running for a relatively short time but has been running stably.Weight 15%About 2.2 years · 60 / 100

Recent upgrades?There is a lack of clear recent information on technology upgrades and code activities.Weight 35%Insufficient data / lack of clear escalation · 10 / 100

Client Diversity?As a protocol layer, the concept of client diversity does not directly apply.Weight 20%Not applicable (protocol layer) · 50 / 100

Deflationary Mechanism?Lack of a clear mechanism for token destruction or deflation.Weight 30%No explicit deflation mechanism · 20 / 100

Inflation rate?There are a large number of token unlocks, and inflationary pressure is significant in the short term.Weight 25%High (with many unlocks) · 10 / 100

Staking rate/position lock-up rate?There is a lack of publicly available data on RIVER token staking rates or lock-up rates.Weight 25%Data is insufficient or undervalued · 30 / 100

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

Core Development Team?The core team members are clearly defined and supported by well-known venture capitalists.Weight 30%The core team is clear, with VC support · 85 / 100

Governance mechanisms?It adopts a token holder governance model, resulting in high community participation.Weight 25%Token holder governance · 90 / 100

Financial Transparency?There are multiple rounds of financing, ensuring high transparency of funds.Weight 25%High (with financing records) · 90 / 100

Concentration of key people?The team structure is relatively reasonable, with a moderate concentration of key personnel.Weight 20%Normal · 60 / 100

Active Address?A high number of daily active addresses indicates good user engagement.Weight 30%Relatively high · 70 / 100

Ecological chain/L2 quantity?It has been deployed on multiple mainstream public blockchains and L2s, with broad ecosystem coverage.Weight 25%Multi-chain deployment (5+) · 80 / 100

DeFi TVL?The total value locked in the protocol is moderate, with room for growth.Weight 25%Approximately $126 million · 40 / 100

Developer community?Lack of publicly available developer community activity data.Weight 20%Data is insufficient / moderate · 20 / 100

Historical Major Failure?There is a risk of permission leakage, triggering a security red line.Weight 25%There is a risk of privilege leakage · 0 / 100

Regulatory Attitude?The regulatory compliance score is zero, facing strict regulatory scrutiny.Weight 30%There is controversy or unfriendliness · 0 / 100

Sec Attitude?The SEC holds an unfriendly stance toward stablecoins and related protocols.Weight 30%There is controversy or unfriendliness · 0 / 100

Client Bug Frequency?There is a risk of permission leakage, affecting overall security.Weight 15%There is a risk of privilege leakage · 0 / 100