The research problem
An audit reference or a single score can hide gaps. A defensible finding requires matching the document, review scope, and current contract.
Review the team, tokenomics, contract permissions, audit documentation, liquidity, and sale terms. Mark whether each point is documented, raises a concern, or remains unresolved.
Review the team, tokenomics, contract permissions, audit documentation, liquidity, and sale terms. Mark whether each point is documented, raises a concern, or remains unresolved.
Results use only your responses. Inputs stay in this browser window. The scanner does not access a blockchain or audit database.
Editors score supported findings for each criterion on a 0–100 scale. Risk, documented project characteristics, and evidence strength are recorded separately.
Each total is the sum of criterion scores × weights / 100, rounded to a whole point. Risk and project research scores are withheld if any criterion lacks evidence, is disputed, or scores below 60 for evidence.
An editorial assessment includes a date, methodology version, and evidence for each criterion. The hub currently publishes no project scores.
General research methodologyAn audit reference or a single score can hide gaps. A defensible finding requires matching the document, review scope, and current contract.
It counts only the evidence, concerns, and gaps you report.
Review the scope, version, date, and unresolved findings. Every audit covers a limited scope.
Sources reviewed on
Prices are indicative, one-time amounts per report. We confirm scope and the total price in an offer. The initial inquiry is free and nonbinding.
An initial review of one asset and one narrowly defined question.
Inquire about this packageFor a deeper review with a relevant benchmark.
Inquire about this packageFor complex questions where evidence is conflicting or incomplete.
Inquire about this packageFor multiple assets, complex questions, or evidence gaps that need a separate scope.
Request a custom quote