Trust Score Methodology
A simple, transparent framework to evaluate airdrops. We combine qualitative checks with basic on-chain/engagement signals so you can compare projects beyond hype.
Factors & Weights
Total weight: 100
| Factor | Description | Weight | Quick Hints |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team & Track Record | Team transparency, past delivery, known contributors, prior launches. | 25 |
|
| Audits & Security | Audits, bug bounties, on-chain exploits history, security posture. | 20 |
|
| Funding & Backers | Funding round, cap table quality, grants, reputable angels/VCs. | 15 |
|
| Usage & Community | Real users, TVL/volumes, active devs, genuine community engagement. | 20 |
|
| Proof of Progress | Roadmap delivery, testnet→mainnet progress, docs, changelogs. | 10 |
|
| Airdrop Design & Fairness | Sybil resistance, fairness, clarity of criteria, anti-farm mechanics. | 10 |
|
Scores are directional and updated over time. “Editors’ Picks” highlight projects that score well and demonstrate consistent progress. Always DYOR.
What increases a score?
- Shipped mainnet launches with measurable usage.
- Recent, reputable audits and bug bounties.
- Credible investors and transparent communications.
What reduces a score?
- Unclear eligibility/snapshot rules or changing criteria.
- Security incidents without clear post-mortems.
- Obvious botting incentives or fake social metrics.