Returns Score Methodology
How we assess whether a DeAI token captures value from its protocol. Five dimensions, scored criteria, and why the exact number matters less than the reasoning behind it.
Every crypto project claims its tokenTokenA digital unit of value or access rights tracked on a blockchain. Tokens can represent ownership in a project, a right to use a service, a share of future revenue, or simply a tradable asset with no underlying claim.Like a physical poker chip a casino issues. The chip itself has no value. What makes it worth something is what it lets you do at the casino, what the casino has promised, and how much other people will pay you for it.Read more → will capture value. Most tokens do not. The Returns Score is our attempt to assess whether a token has a credible structural path to value appreciation based on protocol activity.
Freedom AND Returns. That is the thesis of this site, and it requires two independent measures:
| Score | What It Measures | For Whom |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom Score | How decentralised is the protocol? | Sovereignty seekers, censorship resistors, builders who need neutral infrastructure |
| Returns Score | Does the token capture value? | Investors, participants, anyone allocating capital |
A project can score highly on one dimension and poorly on the other. A fair-launch network with perfect distribution but no revenue mechanism. A revenue-generating platform owned by a single company. Both are real patterns in DeAIDeAIDecentralised AI. An umbrella term for blockchain-based projects that build AI infrastructure (compute, data, inference, models, agents) without a single central provider controlling the system.Like the difference between streaming a movie from Netflix and sharing it via BitTorrent. Netflix is fast and polished but one company controls what you can watch and what you pay. BitTorrent is messier but no single operator can shut you out.Read more →.
Neither score is “better.” They answer different questions for different audiences.
What Returns Score Assesses
The question is simple: if the protocol grows, does the token benefit? Returns Score answers that by checking whether there’s a mechanical link between usage and token value. It does NOT measure:
- Whether the price will go up (we have no idea)
- Whether the team is honest (that is partially covered by Freedom Score)
- Whether the technology works (that is covered in project reviews)
It DOES measure:
- Is there a mechanical link between usage and token value?
- Is the supply schedule sustainable?
- Can the protocol generate real revenue?
- Can holders actually enter and exit positions?
A high Returns Score doesn’t guarantee returns. A low Returns Score doesn’t guarantee losses. It assesses structural alignment, not market outcomes.
The Five Dimensions
Five areas, weighted by importance. Revenue gets the heaviest weighting because it’s the hardest to fake:
| Dimension | Max Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Sustainability | /25 | The heaviest weight. Revenue is the strongest signal of real value creation. |
| Token Utility | /20 | What can holders do with the token? |
| Value Accrual | /20 | Is there a mechanical link between usage and token value? |
| Supply Dynamics | /20 | Is the supply schedule sustainable? |
| LiquidityLiquidityHow easily a token can be bought or sold without moving the price. High liquidity means you can enter or exit large positions quickly at the quoted price. Low liquidity means even small trades can swing the market.Like the difference between selling a house and selling a share of Apple stock. The house might be worth more on paper, but finding a buyer at that price takes weeks. The Apple share converts to cash in one click.Read more → & Access | /15 | Can holders enter and exit positions? |
| Total | /100 |
Why Revenue is weighted highest: A token can have five utilities but if none generate revenue, those utilities are cosmetic. Revenue from paying customers is the hardest metric to fake and the strongest signal that a protocol creates real value.
Dimension overlap with Freedom Score: Token Distribution Fairness (Freedom) and Supply Dynamics (Returns) both assess token supply structure from different angles. Freedom cares about concentration of power. Returns cares about dilution of value. The same allocation can score differently on each.
Dimension 1: Token Utility (/20)
What it measures: What can holders actually do with the token?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 18-20 | Essential utility. Multiple functions: stakingStakingLocking up a cryptocurrency to help secure a blockchain network, usually in exchange for rewards. The locked tokens act as a security deposit that can be taken away if the staker misbehaves.Like putting down a large rental deposit for an apartment. You get the money back if you behave, you earn interest while it's locked, and the landlord takes it if you trash the place.Read more → for yield, governance rights, access to services, payment currency, collateral, required for node operation. Token is structurally essential. |
| 14-17 | Strong utility. 2-3 clear utilities. Token has genuine purpose but protocol could function partially without it. |
| 10-13 | Moderate utility. Single meaningful utility (governance only, or staking emissionsEmissionsNew tokens created and distributed by a blockchain protocol over time as rewards to validators, stakers, or miners. Emissions fund network security and participation at the cost of diluting existing holders.Like a company that pays employees partly in newly printed shares. Every year the total number of shares goes up, which means existing shareholders own a slightly smaller slice of the same company unless the company grows faster than the printing.Read more → only). No structural requirement to hold the token beyond the single use case. |
| 6-9 | Weak utility. Utility exists on paper but not in practice. “Governance” with no real decisions. “Staking” with no purpose beyond emissions. |
| 0-5 | No real utility. Pure speculation vehicle. |
What Counts as Utility
- Payment for services (inference, compute, storage)
- Staking for yield (from real revenue, not just emissions)
- Staking for access (required to operate nodes, validators)
- Governance (meaningful decisions, not just advisory)
- Collateral (for borrowing, slashing, bonding)
- Access gating (token required to use the protocol)
What Does NOT Count
- Airdrops or rewards for holding
- Speculative value (“price will go up”)
- Utility on a roadmap that does not exist yet
- Governance over trivial decisions
Dimension 2: Value Accrual (/20)
What it measures: Is there a mechanical link between protocol activity and token value?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 18-20 | Direct accrual. Clear mechanical link: fees distributed to holders, revenue-sharing to stakers, buy-and-burn from protocol revenue. More activity = unambiguously good for holders. |
| 14-17 | Indirect accrual. Token needed for access, so demand increases with usage. Staking yields from real revenue. |
| 10-13 | Speculative accrual. No implemented fee distribution or burn mechanism. Token value depends on narrative and ecosystem growth rather than mechanical linkage. |
| 5-9 | Weak accrual. Token may benefit from future governance decisions or theoretical fee switches. Aspirational, not implemented. |
| 0-4 | No accrual path. Token has no relationship to protocol success. |
Accrual Mechanisms (Strongest to Weakest)
- Fee distribution to stakers/holders
- Buy and burnBurnPermanently removing tokens from circulation by sending them to an address that no one controls. Burns reduce total supply, which (all else equal) makes each remaining token worth more of the network's value.Like a company buying back its own shares and shredding them. The company's total value stays the same, but each remaining share now represents a slightly bigger slice of that value.Read more → from revenue
- Burn on use
- Staking requirement reducing float
- Access gating
- Governance rights only
- None
Dimension 3: Supply Dynamics (/20)
What it measures: Is the supply schedule sustainable, or will holders be diluted?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 18-20 | Deflationary or fixed. Max supply capped. Low or decreasing circulating supplyCirculating SupplyThe number of tokens currently in circulation and tradeable on the open market. Differs from total supply (which includes locked or unvested tokens) and max supply (the upper limit, if there is one).Like the number of cars on the road today versus the number ever produced. Some are in showrooms, some in junkyards, some still at the factory. Only the ones on the road count toward what people are actually driving.Read more →. Emissions end or become negligible within 5 years. |
| 14-17 | Controlled inflationInflationThe annual rate at which new tokens are created and added to the circulating supply. Most networks use inflation to pay validators, stakers, and infrastructure providers from freshly minted tokens rather than real revenue.Like a landlord who raises the rent every year. If your salary goes up at the same rate, you break even. If it doesn't, you get poorer without noticing, because the number on your payslip hasn't changed but the ground under it has shifted.Read more →. Predictable emission schedule. Moderate inflation (3-10% annually). Insider tokens fully vested. |
| 10-13 | Elevated inflation. High inflation (10-20% annually). Long emission tail. Significant insider allocation but vestingVestingA schedule that locks up tokens allocated to insiders, investors, and team members, releasing them gradually over months or years. Vesting prevents insiders from dumping on public buyers immediately after launch.Like a new employee's stock options at a startup. You don't get all the shares on day one. They unlock over four years so you stick around and do the work rather than cashing out and leaving.Read more → in progress. |
| 6-9 | Dilutive. Extreme inflation (>20%). Major insider unlocks ahead. Emissions far exceed demand. |
| 0-5 | Supply shock risk. Infinite supply or runaway inflation. Large token overhang (50%+ locked/unvested). |
Vesting and Lock-up Scoring Guidance
Supply Dynamics must account for upcoming unlock events, not just annualised inflation:
- CliffCliffA waiting period at the start of a token vesting schedule during which no tokens unlock at all. After the cliff ends, tokens begin releasing according to the vesting schedule.Like a probationary period at a new job. You don't get your stock options on day one. You wait 12 months to prove you'll stick around, then everything starts unlocking normally.Read more → events: A large unlock (>10% of circulating supply) within 6 months warrants a 2-3 point deduction from the base score. Multiple cliffs compound the risk.
- Linear vesting: Predictable and priced in by markets. Score based on the annualised dilution rate, not the total locked amount.
- Circulating supply percentage: If less than 30% of total supply is circulating, the overhang risk is material regardless of the annual emission rate. Score in the 6-9 range maximum unless the vesting schedule is exceptionally long (10+ years).
- Insider concentration: If top 10 wallets hold >50% of circulating supply (excluding protocol-owned liquidity), apply a 1-2 point deduction for sell-pressure risk.
Dimension 4: Revenue Sustainability (/25)
What it measures: Does the protocol generate real revenue from paying customers? This is the most important dimension.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 22-25 | Product-market fit. Real revenue from external customers. Revenue covers or exceeds emissions. Sustainable without inflation. |
| 17-21 | Strong revenue. Meaningful revenue growing quarter-on-quarter. Real users, not just yield farmers. Revenue does not yet cover emissions but trajectory is clear. |
| 12-16 | Early revenue. Revenue exists but is small relative to emissions. Growing customer base with evidence of demand. Revenue-to-emission ratio below 0.5. |
| 7-11 | Emission-dependent. Minimal external revenue. Participants are primarily emission farmers. |
| 4-6 | Speculative. No revenue. Pure incentive layer. |
| 0-3 | Extractive, broken, or pre-revenue. Protocol loses money on every transaction, no path to sustainability, or project has not launched yet. |
What Counts as Revenue
- Fees paid by external users for services
- Transaction fees collected by the protocol
- Subscription or SaaS revenue
- Marketplace fees
What Does NOT Count
- Emissions to participants (that is cost, not revenue)
- Grants or venture funding
- Token sales
- Treasury investment returns
Dimension 5: Liquidity & Access (/15)
What it measures: Can holders actually buy and sell without significant slippageSlippageThe difference between the expected price of a trade and the price you actually get when the trade executes. Slippage usually goes against the trader and gets worse with bigger trades or thinner markets.Like trying to buy 1000 bananas at the corner shop. The first few are at the marked price, but by the time you've bought them all you've moved the price up because there are no more bananas left at the original level. The shop has to restock at higher cost.Read more →?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 13-15 | Tier-1 liquid. Listed on 3+ major CEXs (Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Bybit). Daily volume >$50M. Institutional-grade depth. |
| 10-12 | Well-listed. 2+ tier-1 CEXs or multiple tier-2 CEXs. Daily volume $10-50M. Good retail access. |
| 7-9 | Moderate liquidity. 1-2 mid-tier CEXs. DEXDEXDecentralised Exchange. A trading venue where token swaps happen entirely through smart contracts, with no central operator holding user funds. The largest DEXes are Uniswap, Aerodrome, Raydium, PancakeSwap, and Curve.Like a self-service vending machine that lets you swap one type of coin for another. The machine sets the exchange rate based on its current stock, anyone can deposit coins to refill it, and there's no clerk behind the counter.Read more → liquidity. Daily volume $1-10M. |
| 4-6 | Thin liquidity. DEX-only or low-tier CEX. Daily volume $100K-$1M. Significant slippage on moderate trades. |
| 0-3 | Illiquid or non-existent. Daily volume below $100K, or no tradeable token exists. |
Pre-Token Projects
Projects without a tradeable token receive 0/15 for Liquidity & Access. VCVCVenture Capital. Private investors who fund projects at an early stage in exchange for equity or token allocations. VC rounds are typically pre-launch, at steep discounts to any future public price, with multi-year vesting.Like angel investors in a startup who buy shares before the company goes public. They take more risk because the company might fail, so they get a better price. Once the company IPOs they can sell, and the public market pays whatever price it thinks is fair.Read more → backing and expected exchange listings aren’t assessed - liquidity is scored on what exists today, not what may exist in the future.
Pre-token projects also receive 0 for Revenue Sustainability if no revenue exists. Their total Returns Score is capped by the dimensions that can be assessed and should be interpreted as preliminary.
Grade Bands
The total produces a score from 0 to 100, mapped to letter grades. These bands are aligned with the Freedom Score methodology:
| Score | Grade | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 85-100 | A | Exceptional value capture. Token structurally aligned with protocol success. |
| 70-84 | B | Strong fundamentals. Minor concerns but credible accrual path. |
| 55-69 | C | Adequate. Some value capture but significant gaps or risks. |
| 40-54 | D | Weak. Token economics misaligned or unsustainable. |
| 0-39 | F | Failing. Little to no connection between protocol success and token value. |
The Quadrant Model
The two scores together produce four quadrants, using the raw /100 scores for placement:
| Quadrant | Freedom | Returns | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | High (55+) | High (55+) | The ideal. Decentralised with credible economics. Rare in DeAI today. |
| B | High (55+) | Low (<55) | Sovereignty plays. Genuine decentralisation but unproven economics. |
| C | Low (<55) | High (55+) | Profitable but centralised. Functional businesses with tokens attached. |
| D | Low (<55) | Low (<55) | Neither decentralised nor economically viable. |
Risk Flags
Some risks materially affect returns but are better flagged than scored:
| Flag | Trigger | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory risk | Active SEC/regulatory action, security classification risk | Potential delisting, liquidity destruction |
| Pausable contract | Token contract includes owner-controlled pause function | Centralised kill switch on trading |
| Pre-token | No tradeable token exists | Returns Score is preliminary and incomplete |
These flags appear in project reviews alongside the Returns Score. They’re not scored numerically because their impact is binary (the risk either materialises or it doesn’t) rather than graduated.
Limitations
- Point-in-time. Scores are updated periodically, not in real time. Market data (volume, price) is a snapshot.
- Subjective. Despite the rubric, scoring requires judgement.
- No price predictionInferenceRunning a trained AI model to produce an answer. Inference is what happens when you type a prompt into ChatGPT and get a response. The model takes your input, computes a best guess, and returns it.Like asking an expert for their opinion. The training was the decades they spent becoming an expert. The inference is the 30 seconds it takes them to answer your specific question.Read more →. A high Returns Score does not mean the price will go up.
- Does not capture everything. Team quality, competitive landscape, and technical execution are covered in project reviews, not the score.
- Early-stage uncertainty. Many DeAI projects are pre-revenue or pre-product. Scores reflect current state, not future potential.
- Market correlation. Most DeAI tokens are highly correlated with BTC/ETH. The Returns Score assesses structural alignment, not whether you will make money in a bear market.
How to Use Returns Score
- Filter, not decide. Use scores to narrow options, not to make final decisions.
- Read the reasoning. The number is less important than why we scored it that way.
- Compare, do not absolutise. Grades are relative.
- Check the date. Scores are updated as projects evolve.
- Both scores matter. A high Returns Score with low Freedom Score may be profitable but centralised. A high Freedom Score with low Returns Score may be sovereign but economically unproven.
Scoring Checklist (For Researchers)
Before submitting a Returns Score, the scorer must verify every item on this checklist. This is mandatory for both human researchers and AI agents.
Pre-Submission Checks
- Breakdown sums to headline. Add up all five dimension scores. The total must exactly match the Returns Score headline (/100). No rounding tolerance.
- Grade matches score. Apply the grade bands (85/70/55/40) to the total. The letter grade in the editorial must match.
- Evidence cross-referenced against review. Every evidence statement must be verified against the project’s editorial body text. If the evidence says “staking exists” but the review says “there is no native staking,” the evidence is wrong. Fix it before submitting.
- Pre-token projects checked. If the project has no tradeable token, Liquidity & Access must be 0/15. Revenue Sustainability must be 0 if no revenue exists. Do not score hypothetical future states.
- Vesting cliffs accounted for. Check for upcoming unlocks >10% of circulating supply within 6 months. Apply the deduction guidance from Supply Dynamics. Check circulating supply percentage against the 30% threshold.
- Revenue claims sourced. Every revenue claim must cite a specific source (DeFiLlama, protocol dashboard, on-chain data). “The protocol generates revenue” without a source is not acceptable.
- Liquidity data current. Exchange listings and volume figures must be from within 7 days. Check CoinGecko or CoinMarketCap directly.
- Frontmatter matches editorial. The frontmatter
returnsScore(/10 scale) must equal the total score divided by 10 (rounded to one decimal). The breakdown dimensions in frontmatter must match the editorial body text exactly. - No false precision. Do not use decimal points in dimension scores. All sub-scores are integers.
Post-Submission Automated Check
Run npm run check:returns before committing. This script validates:
- Breakdown dimensions sum to the headline score
- No dimension exceeds its maximum
- Editorial heading matches frontmatter
- Pre-token projects have 0 for liquidity
- Freedom Score heading matches frontmatter (cross-check)
- Grade is consistent with score
The build should not proceed if errors are found.
Revenue Estimation Guidance
Revenue Sustainability is the most important and most subjective dimension. This guidance standardises how revenue is estimated when protocols don’t publish exact figures.
Where to Find Revenue Data
Check these sources in order. Use the highest-quality source available.
| Source | What It Shows | Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| DeFiLlama Fees/Revenue | Protocol fees and revenue, often split by supply-side and protocol revenue | High. Community-maintained, cross-verified. |
| Token Terminal | Revenue, earnings, P/E ratios for crypto protocols | High. Professional data provider. |
| Protocol dashboards | Self-reported metrics (e.g., Akash dashboard, Render network stats) | Medium. Self-reported but usually accurate for usage data. |
| On-chain fee data | Transaction fees collected by the protocol contract | High. Verifiable but requires calculation. |
| Dune Analytics | Community-built dashboards tracking protocol metrics | Medium. Methodology varies by dashboard author. |
| Annual reports or blog posts | Team-published financial summaries | Medium. Self-reported, check for independent verification. |
How to Estimate When No Direct Source Exists
If none of the above sources provide revenue data:
- Calculate from on-chain activity. If you know the fee per transaction and the transaction count, multiply. Document the calculation explicitly.
- Infer from emissions ratio. If the protocol pays out X in emissions and collects Y in fees, the revenue-to-emission ratio is Y/X. This ratio is more useful than the absolute revenue figure for scoring Revenue Sustainability.
- Check for paying customers. Count unique addresses paying for services (not receiving emissions). Even a rough count distinguishes “has revenue” from “emission-only.”
- If no revenue data exists at all, score in the 4-6 range (“Speculative”) or 0-3 range (“Pre-revenue”) and document the gap. Do not guess.
Revenue vs Emissions
This distinction is critical and commonly confused:
- Revenue: Fees paid by external users for services the protocol provides.
- Emissions: Tokens minted and distributed to participants (miners, stakers, node operators).
Emissions are a cost, not revenue. A protocol paying $10M in emissions and collecting $1M in fees has a revenue-to-emission ratio of 0.1, which places it in the 7-11 range (“Emission-dependent”). Many DeAI projects are in this category.
A protocol where revenue exceeds emissions has achieved sustainability. This is rare in DeAI and scores 22-25.
Common Mistakes
- Counting staking yield as revenue (it is usually emissions redistribution)
- Using TVLTVLTotal Value Locked. The sum of all assets currently deposited in a protocol's smart contracts. TVL is the standard measure of how much capital a DeFi or DeAI protocol is custodying.Like the assets under management of a hedge fund. AUM tells you how much money the fund has been trusted with, which is a rough proxy for how much business it's doing. TVL plays the same role for crypto protocols.Read more → as a proxy for revenue (TVL measures capital locked, not fees earned)
- Confusing transaction volume with fee revenue (volume is gross, fees are a fraction)
- Treating token burns from emissions as “deflationary” revenue (burns from emissions are not revenue; burns from user-paid fees are)
Last updated: March 2026. Methodology version 2.1.