Skip to ranking
1010210102 Tokens

Tokenomics ranking

Real value potential

Which tokens have the strongest structural case to hold and grow real value over the next 2 to 10 years. 84 tokens, one rubric, every score explained. Not price targets.

Updated Oct 23, 202677 ranked, 5 graded, not rankedHow the score worksFree JSON APIAnalysis, not financial advice

Ranking

How to read a rowOpen
  1. 1Rank: Tier first, then score.
  2. 2Engine: How value reaches holders: through cash flow, as money, or both.
  3. 3Score: Out of 100.
  4. 4Anatomy: Each segment is one part of the score. Width is its weight, fill is the level reached, so the filled length is the score.
  5. 5Float: Circulating, locked or unvested, and not yet issued supply. The figure is circulating over issued supply.
  6. 6Tier outlook: A named catalyst that could move it up or down a tier. Dots show the likelihood.

A lock after the symbol means the score already clears the next tier, but a gate holds it back. How the score works

TokenEngineTier outlook

T1Store-of-value gradeMoney-grade rules behind a proven reason to hold and leading use. Held as a long-term store of value, or a cash-flow asset sound enough to be held like one2 tokens

T2StrongA real value engine at real scale, in established use, and no single party can change the rules; a gap or two (young, concentrated, still unlocking) keeps it from T11 token

T3MixedA live engine and real use, offset by thin or policy-bound flows, weak soundness, or control by a small group or a single party18 tokens

T4SpeculativeNo material engine or real use yet (by design, not shipped, or faded), so value rests on future adoption31 tokens

T5ImpairedDilution or mint authority outrun any engine, or the chain is failing: a lost fork, or security in sustained decline25 tokens

Graded, not ranked (5)ShowEmerging tokens (under $50M at review) and watch-only tokens carry full scores but stay off the ranking until they clear the floor.
Archived lessons (2)ShowKept for what they teach, not ranked.

Market data: CoinGecko, Oct 24, 2026, refreshed nightly.

How the score works

One score out of 100 for every token, on eleven axes in three pillars. Demand (45 points) asks why anyone would hold it and whether it is used today: the value engine (cash flow that reaches holders, or use as money, whichever is stronger; the two are never added) and adoption, which weighs what leads its category now over what mattered before. Soundness (40 points) asks whether a long-term holder can trust the rules: supply discipline, decentralization, fair distribution, and float and unlocks. Durability (15 points) asks whether it is big, proven and reachable by institutions. Tiers then apply minimums, because an asset is only as sound as its weakest property: a token can score higher than one ranked above it when it misses a tier requirement, and its row names which one. The board orders by tier, then score; ties break on adoption, supply, distribution, security, float, then the engine inputs. Tokens under $50M at review are graded but listed as emerging. Prices enter only through the market-cap band, frozen at each review; market data is shown beside the board, never inside the order.

Demand 45%Soundness 40%Durability 15%
Value engine30Adoption15Supply15Float and unlocks5Distribution10Security10Scale5Track record5Access5

Each axis is scored 0 to 5. A segment's width is its weight, its fill is the level reached, so the filled length of any token's bar is its score out of 100. The value engine counts once, as the stronger of two routes.

Two routes to valueShow

Every token needs a reason to be held. The value engine scores the stronger of two: cash flow (protocol revenue that mechanically reaches holders) or money (people save it, spend it, price in it or post it as collateral). They are never added, so no token is paid twice or punished for lacking the route it was never built for. Becoming a credible store of value is where both routes lead, which is what Tier 1 reflects.

Cash flow: the revenue band, stepped down by how little of it reaches holders and how easily that could change (minus 0 at routing 5, 0.5 at 4, 1 at 3, 2 at 2, 4 at 1, all of it at 0). A large revenue that never reaches holders, or all of a tiny one, scores low.

Money: monetary usage, judged on evidence. Paying its own network's fees counts as 1 at most; higher levels need measurable use: payments, savings, or collateral posted at venues the issuer does not control. A lost fork's money route counts at most 1, because the parent chain holds the role.

Revenue levels lost to the routing discount
Routing543210
Discount0−0.5−1−2−4−5

Example

0123453.52cash flowmoney
Revenue 4, minus 0.5 for routing 4 = cash flow 3.5. Money use 2. The engine is the stronger route: 3.5.
TiersShow

Ordered by tier, then score. A tier needs its score and every gate, so a higher score can sit in a lower tier when one gate is missed.

  • T1Store-of-value gradeMoney-grade rules behind a proven reason to hold and leading use. Held as a long-term store of value, or a cash-flow asset sound enough to be held like oneGate: Score 80+, value engine 4+, adoption 4+, supply 4+, security 4+, distribution 3+, float and unlocks 3+, track record 4+, scale 4+
  • T2StrongA real value engine at real scale, in established use, and no single party can change the rules; a gap or two (young, concentrated, still unlocking) keeps it from T1Gate: Score 55+, value engine 3+, adoption 3+, supply 2+, security 2+, distribution 1+, float and unlocks 1+, scale 3+
  • T3MixedA live engine and real use, offset by thin or policy-bound flows, weak soundness, or control by a small group or a single partyGate: Score 40+, value engine 2+, adoption 2+, supply 1+
  • T4SpeculativeNo material engine or real use yet (by design, not shipped, or faded), so value rests on future adoptionGate: supply 1+
  • T5ImpairedDilution or mint authority outrun any engine, or the chain is failing: a lost fork, or security in sustained declineGate: Everything else

Market cap under $50M at review: graded and shown, not ranked.

Lost fork: a chain that split from a larger parent to claim the same role, and lost (the parent kept the majority of hashrate or stake, users and value), is graded as a failed contest. Its money route and adoption count at most 1, its security at most 1, and it cannot rank above Impaired: its case rests on overtaking the chain that already won.

Fading security: a chain whose main security measure (hashrate for proof of work, tokens staked or active validators for proof of stake, storage power for proof of storage) is down 50% or more from its three-year peak and still lower than a year ago is failing slowly. Its security counts at most 1 and it cannot rank above Impaired until the trend reverses. Outages and price-driven dips alone do not count.

The eleven axesShow
Holder routingDemand, engine inputHow much of the revenue mechanically reaches holders?
  1. 5Plumbing at 90%+, non-discretionary and hard to changeHYPEAVAX
  2. 4Plumbing at 50%+, or 100% via contract but governance-revocableBNBUNITRXCCXLM+13 more
  3. 3Policy-set material share (25%+), or plumbing at 25-50%ETHSKYPUMPETHFIASTER+3 more
  4. 2Small or discretionary flows, plumbing under 25%, or buy-and-hold into a treasuryLINKSOLAAVENEARLDO+8 more
  5. 1Approved or designed but inert, indirect sinks only, or flows into a treasury or endowmentZECXRPSHIBARSAFE+21 more
  6. 0Nothing reaches holders by designBTCXMRLTCDOGEKAS+9 more

For chains and anything with validators: burns (including buybacks into keyless addresses) and fees the protocol itself credits to bonded stake, net of a protocol-capped commission, count in full. Fees paid to an address the block producer controls (priority fees, tips) count zero even if shared voluntarily, as do community-pool, treasury and developer shares. Third-party MEV programs and affiliated-company revenue are left out of both sides. Use the trailing 365 days, dropping a band if the trailing 90 days crosses an edge. De minimis: if revenue scores 0, routing is at most 1.

Revenue realityDemand, engine inputWhat does the protocol actually earn? Realized protocol revenue over the trailing 365 days; what a dormant fee switch could capture goes in the note, not the level.
  1. 5Over $1B/yr
  2. 4$100M-1B/yrBTCETHBNBHYPETRX+6 more
  3. 3$25-100M/yrUNILINKAAVENEARLIT+7 more
  4. 2$5-25M/yrCRVARBPENDLEJTOVVV+3 more
  5. 1$0.5-5M/yr, or undisclosedZECXMRXLMAVAXSUI+20 more
  6. 0Under $0.5M/yr, or emissions-subsidized onlyLTCXRPDOGEKASBCH+20 more
Monetary usageDemand, engine inputIs it actually used as money: saved, spent, priced in or posted as collateral? Governance, staking in its own protocol, fee discounts, vote-locking and margin inside its own protocol are not monetary use. Levels of 2 and up need a measured number.
  1. 5Global settlement assetBTC
  2. 4Base collateral of the largest on-chain economies ($10B+ posted at venues the issuer does not control), or over 30% of supply in monetary useETH
  3. 3$1-10B posted as collateral at venues the issuer does not control, or 10-30% of supply in measurable monetary useZECSOL
  4. 2Measurable niche monetary use: payment rails, savings products, or collateral at third-party venues below the next levelBNBHYPEXMRLINKLTC+11 more
  5. 1Pays its own network's fees (gas never counts higher, whatever the size of the economy)TRXETCARADADOT+21 more
  6. 0Trading onlyUNISKYPUMPAAVELIT+30 more
AdoptionDemand, weight 3, 15 pointsIs the network or product used today, and does it lead its category? Judged on the trailing year with the evidence that fits the category: fees users pay (whoever receives them), value deposited or secured, trading volume and open interest, active users, payment and settlement volume. Trading the token itself is not use.
  1. 5Reference: the category's default by a wide margin, the venue, network or asset others are measured againstBTCETHHYPEUNILINK+3 more
  2. 4Leader: a top-three network or product in its category by use, holding or gaining shareBNBZECXMRTRXSKY+8 more
  3. 3Established: a meaningful, steady share of its categoryLTCXRPXLMLITETHFI+11 more
  4. 2Niche: real but small use, far behind its category leadersKASAVAXNEARCRVFIL+10 more
  5. 1Marginal or fading: negligible use for its size, usage down 60%+ year on year, or a lost forkDOGEBCHSUIETCAR+20 more
  6. 0No product use: the token is the product, or the network or product is not live or sits idleSHIBPEPEPRLQTC

Trend decides between two adjacent levels: losing share scores the lower, gaining share the higher. Usage down 60%+ year on year caps the level at 1 whatever the past standing. A lost fork scores at most 1.

Supply disciplineSoundness, weight 3, 15 pointsHow fast does supply grow over the next 12 months, who can change it, and is there a cap? Growth is newly minted issuance (including newly minted staking rewards) over issued supply, net of protocol burns; release of already-created supply, including pre-minted reward reserves, is scored under float. A mint reachable without a binding holder vote is scored at the worst case it allows: uncapped is 0, a coded cap or rate scores at the band it implies. Where the consensus set itself votes issuance (delegated block producers, stake-weighted issuance proposals), supply is capped at 3.
  1. 5Hard cap or net deflationary by protocol rule, under 1%/yr gross growth, and nobody can mint past the cap or change the schedule short of a hard fork node operators adoptBTCBNBHYPELINKPUMP+16 more
  2. 4Under 1%/yr net without a hard cap, a hard cap with halvings issuing 1-3%/yr, or zero issuance where binding on-chain token governance could vote to mint moreETHUNIXMRSKYLTC+12 more
  3. 31-3%/yr on a published curve, or 3-7%/yr under a hard cap with halvingsZECTRXNEARCRVDOT+5 more
  4. 23-7%/yr net growth without a hard capSOLDOGECCCKBQUBIC+2 more
  5. 17-15%/yr, or the issuance schedule was raised in the last 24 monthsTONATOMENACRO
  6. 0Over 15%/yr, or a key, company, committee or multisig can mint without limit or redirect issuanceAEROPOLTAOSSVQNT+17 more
Float and unlocksSoundness, weight 1, 5 pointsHow much already-created supply is still locked or held back, and how fast does it reach the market? Float is circulating over issued (total) supply; coins not yet mined under an emission schedule are scored under supply, while unminted allocations on a vesting schedule count as locked.
  1. 5Fully vested, no scheduled unlocksBTCETHBNBZECXMR+19 more
  2. 4Small tails only, or 85%+ of supply liquidSOLAAVECCAVAXAERO+11 more
  3. 30.5-1.5% per month, or large foundation or treasury holdings without a scheduleUNILINKXRPXLMETHFI+16 more
  4. 21.5-3% of float unlocking per monthPUMPASTERWLDJTOCRO+3 more
  5. 1Over 3% of float unlocking per month, or under 30% float with ongoing linear unlocksHYPELITPROVEZROARX+2 more
  6. 0Under 15% float, or a cliff of 25%+ of float within 12 monthsTONMONAZTECONDOQTC
DistributionSoundness, weight 2, 10 pointsWho received the supply at launch, on what terms, and does anyone still control a large share? Insider share is what founders, team, private investors, foundations, labs or companies received outside open mining, an open public sale or a broad user airdrop, measured against all supply ever issued (so burns never raise it); mining with a private advantage and streams to named organizations count as insider, while streams released by a coded schedule or a binding holder vote do not. Control is genesis, ecosystem, treasury or reserve supply that one organization still directs; exchange, custodian or ETF wallets are not control. The lower of the two levels applies.
  1. 5No insider allocation of any kind, an open launch, and no organization directing supplyBTCDOGEBCH
  2. 4Under 2% to insiders, open software at launchXMRLTCKASSHIB
  3. 3Insiders received 2-10%, no organization directing over 3%ETHETCPEPE
  4. 2Insiders received 10-25%, or one organization directs 3-10%ZECAAVEAERORAILADA+5 more
  5. 1Insiders received 25-50%, or one organization directs 10-30%HYPEUNICRVSAFEENS+9 more
  6. 0Insiders received over 50%, or one organization directs over 30% todayBNBTRXSKYLINKPUMP+42 more
Decentralization and securitySoundness, weight 2, 10 pointsCan any single party halt, censor, rewrite, upgrade or freeze it, and how costly is an attack? Base layers: the cheaper of renting or buying enough hashrate or stake to halt it for 6 hours (for merge-mined chains, the largest parent-chain pool), top-entity share, independent clients with over 10% share, and halt history. Application, rollup and appchain tokens: who can upgrade the contracts, chain, sequencer or bridge that hold the value and route the fees, with what delay. Mint authority is scored under supply, not here. A token never scores above the chain its value depends on.
  1. 5Attack cost over $10B, 5+ years without a halt, and 2+ independent production clients or a single client with 10+ years without a consensus failureBTCETH
  2. 4Attack cost $1-10B, and 2+ independent production clients or a single client with 10+ years without a consensus failure; or immutable core contracts with no admin power over funds or fees on a base layer scoring 5SHIBPEPEQNT
  3. 3Attack cost $100M-1B with the top entity under 35%, or contracts immutable or upgradeable only by on-chain vote with a 7+ day exit window on a base layer scoring 4+UNISOLDOGEAVAXNEAR+3 more
  4. 2Attack cost $10-100M, an unexploited soundness bug in the last 24 months, or upgrades by a security council or governance with under a 7-day exit windowBNBZECTRXSKYAAVE+8 more
  5. 1A halt, rollback or exploited consensus bug in the last 24 months, attack cost under $10M, or a foundation-selected validator set or small multisig can halt or upgrade with no meaningful exit windowXMRLINKPUMPLTCXRP+41 more
  6. 0One operator, pool, company or key can halt, rewrite, freeze balances, or upgrade value-holding contracts without delayHYPEETCASTERTAOOKB+4 more

A failing chain (a lost fork, or security in sustained decline under the fading-security rule) scores at most 1 here, whatever its attack cost today.

ScaleDurability, weight 1, 5 pointsIs this a real, investable asset today: size you can actually trade?
  1. 5Systemic: over $10B market cap and $500M/day+BTCETHBNBHYPEZEC+3 more
  2. 4Major: $1-10B market cap and $50M/day+UNIXMRTRXLINKPUMP+21 more
  3. 3Mid-cap: $250M-1B market cap and $10M/day+SKYCCKASLITETHFI+22 more
  4. 2Small: $50-250M market cap and $1M/day+ARSAFEENSDYDXCKB+9 more
  5. 1Marginal: $10-50M market cap and $250K/day+RAILPROVEARXQTC
  6. 0Uninvestable: under $10M market cap or under $250K/daySSVLEO

The lower of the market-cap band and the 30-day median daily volume band at review (CoinGecko), minus one level if the core team is unfunded or the ecosystem abandoned.

Track recordDurability, weight 1, 5 pointsHow long has it survived, and through what? A rollback is a coordinated fork or irregular state change that reverses a valid on-chain outcome. For applications, count from the token's launch; an exploit that cost users or the treasury $50M+ counts like a rollback.
  1. 510+ years with no rollback or coordinated halt in the last 10 yearsBTCETHXMRXRPDOGE+1 more
  2. 48-10 years and two such cyclesZECSKYLINKAAVEXLM+2 more
  3. 35-8 years and survived an 80%+ drawdownUNITRXNEARLDOSHIB+14 more
  4. 23-5 years, or a rollback, coordinated chain-wide halt or restart, or a $50M+ exploit in the last 5 yearsBNBSOLLTCKASAVAX+19 more
  5. 11-3 yearsHYPEPUMPCCETHFIASTER+13 more
  6. 0Under 1 yearLITMONAZTECARXZAMA+2 more
Institutional accessDurability, weight 1, 5 pointsCan institutions hold it through regulated products? A dated legal exclusion in a major market (for example EU AMLR for privacy coins from Jul 2027) caps this at 3.
  1. 5US spot ETFs over $10B with staking or in-kindBTCETH
  2. 4US spot ETFs over $500M from several issuersSOLXRP
  3. 3One US spot ETF, or US ETFs under $500MBNBHYPEZECTRXLINK+8 more
  4. 2OTC trust, non-US product, or a pending US filingUNISKYAAVEKASXLM+32 more
  5. 1Top-tier exchanges only, or delisting pressureXMRPUMPETHFIASTERSAFE+18 more
  6. 0No top-tier exchangeRAILQUBICPRLQTC

Chips list the graded tokens at each level today, best score first: the same fact pattern should get the same level everywhere.

Coverage, review and confidenceShow

Tokens an investor would expect on a long-term value ranking, plus a few small ones that teach something. Reviewed at each pass.

  • Floor: at least $10M market cap and about $250K/day of volume on venues with open deposits, plus a verified CoinGecko id. Two reviews below the floor in a row means the token is dropped.
  • Emerging entries (under $50M) must earn their slot with a live mechanism paying holders or a dated catalyst within 12 months; only the strongest token per mechanism family stays.
  • Lesson rows: a token that fails the above but is the clearest example of a lesson moves off the board with a one-line reason, for up to 12 months (at most five such rows).
  • Fraud needs evidence: a token is dropped at once only on a citable fact (an unscheduled insider mint, an admin-key drain, faked volume, a hidden exploit). Suspicion stays a flag in the write-up.
  • Additions: a top-100 market cap, or $250M+ with $5M/day of volume, or a live holder mechanism at $50M+. Pre-mainnet or pre-market tokens can be listed as watch-only, unranked.

Recently dropped: WALLET ($8.7M market cap, ~$7K/day of volume; ~$19K/yr of fees against ~8M WALLET/yr of staking mint); QBT (~$207K market cap, ~$25/day on one exchange, no CoinGecko listing; dropped on liquidity, with no evidence of fraud); FOLD ($16M market cap with ~$28K of order book within 2%; no fees until permissionless nodes; ARX covers the confidential-compute family); ZKC (Under $10M on CoinGecko, 98% below its launch high, no published fees; PROVE covers the prover family); GNOT ($11M market cap, ~$99K/day of volume; nothing reaches holders by design and the float grows ~6.75x by Sep 2028); QUIL ($5.7M market cap, ~$3.5K/day; trading is mostly in an ERC-20 wrapper that one private key can mint).

Every axis level carries a confidence (high, medium or low) for how strongly the sources back it; lower confidence draws a lighter fill in the score bar. Entries are reviewed end to end; a review older than 90 days, or a watched date that has passed, is flagged on the row and the token page.

Review panel 2026-10-23 (Distribution and fairness specialist, Decentralization and security specialist, Supply and float specialist, Market and institutional specialist, Methodology reviewer, Per-coin deep-research analysts). Every soundness and durability axis was scored for the whole board by one specialist per axis, so the same fact pattern gets the same level everywhere; each added coin was researched in depth by its own analyst and reconciled with the specialists, with every disagreement settled against the published rubric. Routing and revenue carry over from the Oct 19, 2026 review, corrected where the realized-revenue and buy-and-hold rules apply. Weights and tier gates were fixed by a methodology review before the board was computed, and the Oct 19 five-reviewer store-of-value panel served as calibration anchors. Mint, upgrade and freeze powers were read on-chain wherever a contract exists.

Tier outlook labelsShow
  • Could move up ↑A named, dated catalyst could lift its scores into the next tier.
  • Could move down ↓A named catalyst could push its scores into the tier below.
  • Two-wayCredible catalysts both ways within about 12 months; an arrow shows which side is more likely, no arrow means neither is favored. Uncertainty, not a warning.
  • StableNo catalyst in view that would change its tier.

Use this data

This page is rendered from a public JSON endpoint: free, no key required. The payload carries more than the page shows: full rationales, every axis note, migration watch items and cross-token research themes.

GET https://tokens.10102.io/api/v1/tokenomics?symbol=NEAR

The full v1 API (wallet analysis, token knowledge, stats) is documented in the API docs.

Now check your own holdings

This ranking is hand-curated research on the tokens we track; the scanner is the automated side: health scores, legitimacy and spam checks for every ERC-20 in any wallet. Read-only: paste an address or ENS name, no wallet connection, no signatures.

Scan a wallet →