Week ending 9 August 2026.

An archived brief, kept as it was published. The current week is on the main page, and the thresholds behind every score are on methodology.

That week

The score changed this week. It used to average seven categories; it now weighs three, all financial — what the protocol earns against what it is worth, whether that revenue covers what it issues, and how much of its supply is already in the market. Distribution, builder activity, real usage, sentiment and value accrual are still collected and still shown when a row is opened, but they no longer carry weight.

The new measure is self-funding: revenue divided by the market value of tokens issued over the same period. At 1.00× a protocol pays for itself. Only a handful clear it. Tron earns 5.11× what it issues and Aave 2.35×, while Chainlink sits at 0.09× and Internet Computer at 0.02× — the shortfall in each case is made up by holders through dilution, and each row now reports what that costs per year as a share of market value. Arbitrum's is 21.4%.

Issuance here is measured from circulating supply rather than from minting, and that decides real cases. Chainlink's total supply is fixed at a billion, so counting mint events would record its issuance as zero and rate it perfectly self-funding. But 251 million of that billion sits outside circulation and enters at roughly 10% a year, which dilutes a holder exactly as new minting would.

Bitcoin scores near the bottom of this table and that is the measure working, not failing. It collects no protocol revenue while paying miners entirely in new issuance — an accurate statement about its token economics and a useless one about Bitcoin. Every proof-of-stake network runs negative here for years, because issuance is how they buy security. Read the table as a screen on token economics, not as a ranking of which assets are worth owning.

	Project
52	AAVEAave	80	$3.8MGood	2.35×Excellent	96%Excellent
8	TRXTRON	71	$27.1MGood	5.11×Excellent	∞Good
86	RENDERRender	66	$158KGood	2.12×Excellent	81%Good
37	UNIUniswap	63	$5.0MExcellent	0.60×Good	62%Fair
19	LINKChainlink	51	$4.6MFair	0.09×Fair	75%Fair
89	JUPJupiter	50	$3.8MExcellent	0.94×Good	33%Poor
2	ETHEthereum	49	$1.9MWeak	self-fundingGood	∞Excellent
4	BNBBNB	47	$1.1MWeak	self-fundingGood	67%Good
60	ICPInternet Computer	46	$78KFair	0.02×Weak	∞Fair
76	POLPOL (ex-MATIC)	43	$2.3MGood	0.22×Good	∞Poor
95	ARBArbitrum	43	$337KFair	0.03×Weak	66%Weak
1	BTCBitcoin	41	$0Poor	0.000×Poor	96%Excellent
17	XMRMonero	39	$0Poor	0.000×Poor	∞Excellent
11	DOGEDogecoin	38	$0Poor	0.000×Poor	∞Excellent
79	ALGOAlgorand	36	$344Poor	0.000×Poor	90%Good
91	FILFilecoin	36	$261KGood	0.03×Weak	∞Poor
32	AVAXAvalanche	35	$61KWeak	0.01×Weak	60%Fair
16	ADACardano	34	$7KPoor	0.000×Poor	83%Good
7	SOLSolana	33	$1.6MWeak	0.006×Poor	∞Weak
40	NEARNEAR Protocol	32	$30KWeak	0.004×Poor	∞Fair
29	HBARHedera	30	$0Poor	0.000×Poor	88%Good
26	GRAMGram (prev. Toncoin)	30	$41KWeak	0.002×Poor	∞Weak
74	ENAEthena	25	$26KWeak	0.001×Poor	66%Weak
98	APTAptos	24	$96KFair	0.01×Weak	40%Poor
20	XLMStellar	22	$35KWeak	0.001×Poor	∞Weak
54	DOTPolkadot	21	$0Poor	0.000×Poor	81%Fair
6	XRPXRP	21	$9KPoor	0.000×Poor	63%Weak
31	SUISui	13	$25KWeak	0.001×Poor	41%Poor
81	ATOMCosmos Hub	6	$0Poor	0.000×Poor	∞Poor

Click a row for the numbers behind its scores, a column heading to sort by it, or the i beside a heading for what that column measures. Revenue is what the protocol collected over the last 30 days, before the cost of running it — open a row for the figure net of new issuance.

Not financial advice. These are ratings of measurable properties, not recommendations, and this page is a record of what those measures said on one date.