GromaCoin sits on a real REIT with SEC filings and Boston apartments, yet the token scored 29 out of 100, grade D: the issuer's own numbers disagree across sources, the manager sets the NAV, and the Base contract does not implement the promised ERC-3643.
The first tokenized venture fund: a regulated transfer agent in Securitize, named custodians and auditor — against a NAV the manager calculates itself. A roughly 6x rise in 12 months with no public explanation, no redemption, and a historical discount to NAV of up to 75%. Final score 40 out of 100, grade C.
A Swiss tracker token on pre-IPO Revolut shares: ledger-based security and bankruptcy remoteness through a trust, against an undisclosed SPV, 20% + 5% fees at SPV level and no real exit before 2029. Preliminary score 32 out of 100, grade C.
A 16% annual emission with zero absorption, burned coins back in circulation after an exploit, $1.5bn of announced tokenization against $370.9k actually issued on-chain. Rating CC, 22 out of 100.
Ondo leads the RWA category with $3.47bn under management and $57.9m in annual fees. But ONDO is a governance token with no economic rights: the fee switch is off, there are no buybacks or burns, the products are bought without the token, and on 17 January 2027 $615m — 35% of the float — unlocks in one event: rating CCC, 38/100.
Zcash has answered “why the coin is needed”: a shielded transaction is impossible without ZEC, the cap is 21m, and there is no vesting or unlocks. But fees are negligible and go to miners, while development is paid for by diluting holders 3.89% a year with no absorption mechanism whatsoever: rating BBB, 66/100.
Quant Network's technology underpins the sterling tokenisation pilot with Barclays and HSBC, and the Overledger licence is payable only in QNT. But a licence costs 3 QNT, there are 40+ clients, and when payment is made in stablecoins the tokens are locked from the treasury rather than bought on the market: rating BB, 55/100.
IOTA has a genuine token product linkage: network fees, validator collateral and RWA tokenisation do not work without the token. But the protocol mints 767,000 IOTA a day and burns under 1m in fees per 90 days — rating A, 74/100, with inflation of about 6% a year and FDV down from $13bn to $145m.
Pump.fun buys back 50% of its fee revenue and has burned 36% of PUMP supply — yet the price sits at an all-time low, because nothing on the platform requires the token. 8Blocks unpacks the model in a BB-rated tokenomics audit.
[Rating methodology]
How we assess the link between product and token
PRODUCTUsers · volume · revenue
TPLToken Product Linkage
TOKENPrice · holders · demand
StrongNo linkage
Product growth creates demand and economic value for the token.
Value capture
Does product revenue reach the token?
Token necessity
Is it necessary in the core loop or optional?
Demand elasticity
Does activity growth increase token demand?
Supply sinks
Do burns and locks grow with usage?
On-chain proof
Are the flows verifiable rather than assumed?
Rule durability
How difficult is it to turn the linkage off?
Token Product Linkage is the core of the assessment. We also analyse tokenomics resilience, fundamentals, governance and control, security, and market structure; the result combines a score, colour rating, and key risks.
Every audit above is scored this way.
We show what we measure and why; weights and formulas remain part of our internal methodology.