Every asset takes the same test of twelve questions. Each question awards points, one hundred in total. This page says what the twelve questions measure, what had to be corrected about the measurement already, and how often this site has been right so far.
What these scores are NOT
They are not a forecast. A high number does not mean “will rise”; it means that the asset scores better on these twelve questions than the others. The best proof of that is at the very top of our own ranking — Bitcoin is there, and Bitcoin is the benchmark, not a candidate.
They are not measurements. The available data does not support the precision that numbers like 20, 14 and 12 suggest. It is a ranking with a duty to give reasons.
They are not investment advice, not a price forecast, not a buy or sell recommendation. Where nothing was measured it says “not researched” — never “none”.
What has been corrected about the measurement
This list is here because a measurement without its corrections cannot be checked.
Liquidity was measured too narrowly
Until August 27, 2026, only two exchanges were measured; an asset that was not listed there got zero. That was wrong: NEXO was in the list with zero and actually has around 151,800 dollars of exit depth. The re-measurement across all reachable exchanges was completed on August 29, 2026.
Six exclusions were lifted as a result: XAI, CGPT, FLUX, PORTAL, HOT and NEXO. Three remain: GEODNET with 9,805 dollars, Measurable Data with 172 dollars, and the Legacy Frax Dollar, which as a stable-value token cannot rise anyway.
Three criteria have turned out to be defective
User growth: for 33 of the 45 assets in the August 2026 state, the figure could not be obtained at all, and where it was available, user numbers had mostly fallen — points were awarded regardless, because the valuation had fallen even further.
External capital channel: what it really measures above all is size, because funds exist almost only for large assets.
Independence: it is the most important question of the whole project — can a single company take the token’s purpose away again — and it carries only two points out of a hundred.
Survivability contradicts our own research
Survivability carries twelve points in the model because the winners of the past were on average older than the losers. The literature review of September 1, 2026 produced a counter-finding: age does not appear as a factor in any of the factor models found, and the probability of survival depends on trading volume, not on age.
Together with size and liquidity, 26 out of 100 points today measure largely the same thing.
The six-window table has been measured again
The six-window table was on the page in a version that had never been recalculated and was removed. On September 2, 2026 it was measured again: six of seven figures were confirmed, one deviated by more than ten percentage points.
Measurement results behind the criteria
These figures are the reason a criterion is weighted the way it is. They used to be in the legend and belong here, because the legend says what a figure means, not how we got there.
Survivability: the winners of the past were on average 4.7 years old, the losers 1.9.
Amount still locked: when locked coins are released, the price usually falls — by 16 percent against Bitcoin on average in the month that follows.
Investors and partners: projects with famous backers did not perform better than those without. That is why this item awards no points.
Why nothing is being changed regardless — until December 8, 2026
The weighting deliberately stays unchanged until December 8, 2026. If it were adjusted every time a criterion looks weak, there would be no way to tell whether the rules are any good — in the end one would only have a rule that fits the past. The decision is made on that day, not before.
This site's track record
How often has this site been right so far?
+5.4%
Median of the seven assets that were at the threshold at their first assessment — against Bitcoin, since the day of that assessment
Not better than the rest so far. The seven assets stand at a median of +5.4% against Bitcoin, all assessed assets at +12.3%. Median: half of the assets are above it, half below.
A strong relationship between score and advantage over Bitcoin has not been demonstrated up to the measurement of October 10, 2026; a weak one shows up in one of three counting methods and does not survive the control for provenance.
State of the measurement: cut-off date October 9, 2026, seven assets at the threshold, compared with all 133 assets assessed against the twelve criteria since August 26, 2026 – including those no longer on this site. Source: effectiveness measurement of score against return of October 10, 2026, performance measured in each case since the day of the first assessment. The chart for it is on the home page.