STIR measures how deeply each token is embedded in real human economic activity — not speculation, not hype. Independent, community-funded, refreshed continuously on a 24h cycle.
68
Tokens Rated
24h
Refresh Cycle
9
STIR Criteria
—
GLOBAL INDEX
$284K
DAO Treasury
24H RATING CYCLENext update in —
Top Movers 24h
↓Click on a crypto logo below to see the full grading breakdown and access the editorial journal.↓
#
Token
STIR Grade
Real Eco.
Security
Adoption
Governance
24h Δ
Showing 1–20 of 68
STABLECOINS — INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Stablecoins are pegged to fiat currencies and are not rated by STIR. They serve as liquidity infrastructure and are presented here for informational purposes only.
Token
Issuer
Reserves
Last Audit
De-peg Risk
Type
USDT Tether
Tether Ltd
Fiat + Tbills
Quarterly (BDO)
⚠ Medium
Centralized
USDC USD Coin
Circle
Cash + Tbills
Monthly (Deloitte)
✓ Low
Centralized
DAI Dai
MakerDAO
Crypto collateral
On-chain continuous
⚠ Medium
Decentralized
FRAX Frax
Frax Finance
Algorithmic + USDC
On-chain continuous
✗ High
Hybrid Algo
TUSD TrueUSD
TrustToken
Fiat
Real-time (Chainlink)
⚠ Medium
Centralized
DAO Treasury
$284,120
Community-funded — fully transparent
Sponsored Analyses$142K
Premium Subscriptions$89K
Advertising$53K
Submit Your Token
Get your token rated by STIR. Submit your project and receive a complete independent analysis — covering fundamentals, team, security, adoption and real-world impact. Your rating and full report are published publicly on STIR.
One-time submission fee funds independent research. It does not influence your rating.
$200 · Full report · Published in 7 days
✓ Complete STIR rating across9criteria
✓ Full research report published publicly
✓ Listed permanently in STIR database
✓ Editorial independence guaranteed by DAO charter
Tokens ranked by combined Ethics & Transparency score — independent of market cap
STIR Certified Badge
Select a token to generate its embeddable badge
STIR Methodology
STIR — Scale of Token Involvement in Reality — is an independent cryptocurrency rating agency. Our methodology is open, community-governed, and editorially independent from any commercial interest.
HOW STIR SCORES WORK
Each token receives a score from 0 to 100 across 9 independent criteria. The weighted average produces the final STIR Score, which determines the grade. A base score is set through editorial review; three criteria (Adoption, Transparency, and Security) are continuously adjusted — within tightly bounded limits — based on real signals collected from GitHub activity, community growth, and recent press mentions. Real Economy Impact, Governance, Decentralization, Ethics, Regulatory Clarity, and Team Track Record remain fully editorial for now.
THE 9 CRITERIA
Real Economy Impact
22%
Measures how deeply the token is embedded in real human economic activity — actual use cases outside the crypto ecosystem, partnerships with non-crypto institutions, merchant adoption, and impact on everyday economic life.
0–20
No identifiable use beyond trading/speculation. No verifiable partnership. The project exists purely as a financial asset.
20–40
Some partnership announcements, but unverified, inactive, or symbolic in scope (e.g. MOU with no real deployment).
40–60
At least one real, verifiable use case, but small-scale or geographically limited. Anecdotal adoption.
60–80
Multiple verifiable, active use cases with measurable volume or users. At least one confirmed institutional partnership (company, government, recognized NGO).
80–100
Significant, measurable adoption in the real economy (payments, supply chain, identity, etc.), with several active, verifiable institutional partnerships sustained over time — not a one-off announcement.
Security
17%
Evaluates the cryptographic robustness of the protocol, consensus mechanism resilience, track record of security incidents, quality and frequency of independent audits, and response to vulnerabilities.Continuously fine-tuned (±3pts max) from GitHub activity signals.
Adoption
15%
Assesses real-world adoption metrics — active wallet count, transaction volume, developer activity, institutional integration, and geographic spread of usage.Continuously fine-tuned (±3pts max) from community growth and press mentions.
Governance
11%
Reviews the quality of on-chain and off-chain governance structures — DAO participation rates, proposal quality, resistance to plutocracy, upgrade mechanisms, and community representation.
0–20
Centralized governance with no community voting mechanism, or a DAO that exists but is inactive/captured by a handful of addresses.
20–40
A voting mechanism exists but participation is very low, or voting power is extremely concentrated (a few wallets consistently decide outcomes).
40–60
Functional governance with regular but modest participation. Some proposals contested, but the process is broadly respected.
60–80
Active, diverse participation. Track record of community proposals that genuinely changed the protocol — not just rubber-stamped by the founding team.
80–100
Mature, widely distributed governance, resistant to capture, with documented anti-plutocracy mechanisms (quadratic voting, delegation, etc.) and a long track record of respected community decisions.
Decentralization
9%
Quantifies the actual decentralization of the network — node distribution, token concentration, validator diversity, geographic spread, and resistance to single-point control.
0–20
Network operated by a single entity or a very small group (<10 nodes/validators) — an obvious single point of failure.
20–40
Modest validator count, strong geographic or technical concentration (e.g. majority hosted on a single cloud provider).
40–60
Reasonable distribution but with identifiable pockets of concentration (e.g. top 5 validators control >40% of power).
60–80
Good geographic and technical distribution; validation power concentration is declining or already reasonable (top 5 <33%).
80–100
Broad, verified distribution — no single entity or small group can unilaterally influence consensus. Client/implementation software diversity.
Ethics & ESG
8%
Evaluates the project's involvement in sustainable development, environmental commitments (energy consumption, carbon offsetting), charitable donations, support for nonprofit associations, and social impact programs.Unique to STIR — not found in traditional rating agencies.
0–20
Proven, unresolved controversies (fraud, exploitation, documented environmental harm) with no response or correction from the project.
20–40
No identified ESG initiative, but no major controversy either — neutral by default.
40–60
Some announced commitments (e.g. carbon offsetting, one-off donations) but not systematic or not verified over time.
60–80
Regular, verifiable ESG commitments (NGO partnerships, active offset programs, transparency on energy footprint).
80–100
Structured, measurable ESG program sustained over time, recognized by independent third parties (audits, certifications), no unresolved controversy.
Transparency
6%
Measures the openness of the project — published independent audits, open-source code availability, team accountability, financial disclosures, and public communication quality.Unique to STIR — pioneers accountability in crypto ratings. Continuously fine-tuned (±3pts max) from GitHub activity signals.
Regulatory Clarity
7%
Assesses the project's exposure to regulatory risk — legal disputes, enforcement actions, jurisdictional clarity, and compliance posture with financial authorities.New criterion — under editorial review, added progressively per token.
0–20
Active regulatory action underway (lawsuit, fine, ban) in a major jurisdiction, unresolved.
20–40
Ambiguous or contested legal status in at least one major jurisdiction (e.g. security-vs-commodity classification unsettled).
40–60
No active litigation, but no official clarity on regulatory status either — a tolerated but unconfirmed grey area.
60–80
Regulatory status clarified in at least one major jurisdiction (license obtained, official classification), demonstrated compliance.
80–100
Clear, compliant regulatory status across multiple major jurisdictions, active licenses/registrations, no ongoing litigation.
Team Track Record
5%
Reviews the founding team's public history — prior projects, delivery record, transparency about identity, and any past controversies.New criterion — under editorial review, added progressively per token.
0–20
Anonymous team with no verifiable history, or a known history marked by a prior failure/scandal (rug pull, fraud).
20–40
Partially identified team, limited or unverifiable professional history in the crypto/tech sector.
40–60
Identified team with a reasonable professional background but no major prior achievement demonstrated.
60–80
Team with a solid track record (successful prior projects, recognized sector experience), limited and well-managed turnover.
80–100
Team with a long, demonstrated track record of success in the sector, strong stability, transparency about team changes, reputation recognized by independent peers.
GRADE SCALE
AAA
90–100
AA
80–89
A
70–79
BBB
60–69
BB
50–59
B
40–49
C
20–39
D
0–19
About the scoring bands For the six fully editorial criteria above, the "View scoring bands" panels frame the editorial judgment with concrete evidence expected at each level — they don't fully replace it. STIR remains a rating agency that judges, not a purely mechanical algorithm. Signals are gathered through web research (automated, reviewed by an editor before publication) so the process stays verifiable. These bands were last revised July 2026 — a date distinct from each individual token's rating date.
Independence Guarantee STIR ratings are determined solely by our open methodology. Sponsorship and advertising do not influence ratings. Sponsored token submissions receive faster processing only — no editorial influence. All contributions fund independent research infrastructure.
Update Frequency Three criteria (Adoption, Transparency, Security) are continuously fine-tuned from CoinGecko market/GitHub data and press RSS feeds, within tightly bounded limits. Premium subscribers see these adjustments live; free visitors see a snapshot refreshed weekly. The remaining six criteria are set through editorial review.
STIR Score / 100
EDITORIAL JOURNAL
Click below to see the record ↓
Real Economy Analysis
Loading AI analysis…
Security Assessment
Loading AI analysis…
Ethics & ESG
Loading ethics analysis…
🔍 Transparency
Loading transparency analysis…
Live Signal Adjustments
Small automatic adjustments (max ±3pts per criterion) based on real-time GitHub, community, and news signals — on top of the editorial base score.
📰 Latest News
Searching latest news…
📈 Score History
History builds after each refresh cycle
STIR Outlook
✦ AI-Generated Independent Assessment
Generating…
STIR
SELECT YOUR LANGUAGE
Choisissez votre langue · Sprache wählen · Elige tu idioma · अपनी भाषा चुनें
TOKEN COMPARATOR
+ Add Token
+ Add Token
+ Add Token
CRITERIA COMPARISON
TOKEN COMPARATOR
Compare up to 3 tokens side by side across all 9 STIR criteria — Real Economy Impact, Security, Adoption, Governance, Decentralization, Ethics, Transparency, Regulatory Clarity, and Team Track Record.
Perfect for investors choosing between similar projects, or analysts tracking competitive positioning.
HOW IT WORKS
1. Click the Compare button in the header
2. Add up to 3 tokens using the search
3. See their scores compared bar by bar
4. Remove any token with ✕ and add another
🔒 STIR Premium
Not a subscriber yet? Get live continuous updates, score alerts, and your own non-custodial vault.
Already subscribed? Enter your MULTIVERS key (the same one used for your STIR Vault) below to verify your status. Your key is never sent anywhere — only a one-way derived ID is checked.
