Liquity

LQTYDeFi protocol✓ verified✓ audited

scored from the board run of 2026-10-08. liquity. Run a live analysis

🏷️ Cash-flow app, judged on fees, revenue, TVL, and value accrual.

39.6/100

D (avoid)

coverage 80%, medium confidence, 60% tier-stable, rank #36/67

Share:Post on X

Compare with other tokens

⚠ real yield 0.5% below 4.5% treasury hurdle

Price

$0.234

Market cap

$23.14M

FDV

$23.41M

24h volume

$836.01K

24h change

+0.2%

From ATH

-100%

Circulating

98.84M

Total supply

100.00M

Price

Domain scores

0 to 100. Each domain is the mean of its scored features' percentiles against this asset class's reference basket; the working is tabled below.

fundamental

39.7

tokenomics

61.0

onchain

20.4

social

1.8

dev

54.7

Cross-chain & resources

Present on 0 chain(s).

Links

🦎 CoinGecko

Data sources

What each source supplied for this token, with a link to its own page so every figure below can be checked at the source.

coingeckook

price, market cap, supply, volume, community up-votes, watchlists, repo links

defillamaok

fees, revenue, holders revenue, TVL, audit record (protocol, or chain for an L1)

santimentok

daily active addresses (90-day trend, 30-day means) and dev-activity level (events/day over 90 days)

githubokliquity

most recent push across the project's accounts (dead-token gate)

ethplorerok

top-10 holder shares (Ethereum ERC-20s only)

sourcifyok

contract source verification

cryptorankoff

vesting schedule / unlock overhang (Pro plan)

Key

ok: returned data for this token; it is in the score

empty: reachable, but has nothing on this token (not tracked there); scored without it

error: the request failed this run (rate limit or outage); scored without it and retried next refresh

off: not queried: no identifier for this token, or the source needs a key or plan we do not have

stale: the source failed this run; the last stored values were carried forward (dated in the advisory) so the score does not move on an outage

How the score is built

DeFi protocol. Each feature is computed from the raw figures shown, then ranked as a percentile (0 to 100) against the defi reference basket; features average within a domain; domains are weighted, with the weights renormalized over the domains that have data (a domain the class is defined by is floored, not skipped, when it has none); any gate that trips caps the result. Points are percentile times weight; they add up to the raw score.

FundamentalsValuation and cash flow: is it cheap relative to real economic activity?

weight 30%, 4/4 features, domain score 39.7

P/F
lower is better, defillama
pct 56 vs 25
7.5% weight, +4.2
Market cap: $23.14M
Fees (total1y): $2.63M
$23.14M ÷ $2.63M = 8.81x
P/S
lower is better, defillama
pct 29 vs 23
7.5% weight, +2.2
Market cap: $23.14M
Revenue (total1y): $540.85K
$23.14M ÷ $540.85K = 42.78x
MC / TVL
lower is better, defillama
pct 64 vs 26
7.5% weight, +4.8
Market cap: $23.14M
TVL: $302.04M
$23.14M ÷ $302.04M = 0.08x
Real yield
higher is better, defillama
pct 9 vs 18
7.5% weight, +0.7
Holders revenue (total1y): $119.97K
Market cap: $23.14M
$119.97K ÷ $23.14M = 0.5%

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
P/F lower is better, defillama	Market cap: $23.14M Fees (total1y): $2.63M	$23.14M ÷ $2.63M = 8.81x	56 vs 25 peers	7.5%	+4.2
P/S lower is better, defillama	Market cap: $23.14M Revenue (total1y): $540.85K	$23.14M ÷ $540.85K = 42.78x	29 vs 23 peers	7.5%	+2.2
MC / TVL lower is better, defillama	Market cap: $23.14M TVL: $302.04M	$23.14M ÷ $302.04M = 0.08x	64 vs 26 peers	7.5%	+4.8
Real yield higher is better, defillama	Holders revenue (total1y): $119.97K Market cap: $23.14M	$119.97K ÷ $23.14M = 0.5%	9 vs 18 peers	7.5%	+0.7

TokenomicsSupply structure: dilution, unlocks, float, and value accrual to holders.

weight 25%, 3/5 features, domain score 61.0

FDV / MCAP
lower is better, coingecko
pct 79 vs 26
8.3% weight, +6.6
Total supply: 100.00M
Circulating supply: 98.84M
100.00M ÷ 98.84M = 1.01x
Unlock overhang
lower is better, cryptorank
not scored
vesting data needs a CryptoRank Pro plan
Unlock / volume
lower is better, cryptorank
not scored
next-unlock value needs CryptoRank Pro or DefiLlama Pro
Float
higher is better, coingecko
pct 79 vs 26
8.3% weight, +6.6
Circulating supply: 98.84M
Total supply: 100.00M
98.84M ÷ 100.00M = 98.8%
Token sink
higher is better, defillama
pct 26 vs 21
8.3% weight, +2.1
Holders revenue (total1y): $119.97K
Revenue (total1y): $540.85K
$119.97K ÷ $540.85K = 22.2%

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
FDV / MCAP lower is better, coingecko	Total supply: 100.00M Circulating supply: 98.84M	100.00M ÷ 98.84M = 1.01x	79 vs 26 peers	8.3%	+6.6
Unlock overhang lower is better, cryptorank	n/a	vesting data needs a CryptoRank Pro plan	n/a	n/a	n/a
Unlock / volume lower is better, cryptorank	n/a	next-unlock value needs CryptoRank Pro or DefiLlama Pro	n/a	n/a	n/a
Float higher is better, coingecko	Circulating supply: 98.84M Total supply: 100.00M	98.84M ÷ 100.00M = 98.8%	79 vs 26 peers	8.3%	+6.6
Token sink higher is better, defillama	Holders revenue (total1y): $119.97K Revenue (total1y): $540.85K	$119.97K ÷ $540.85K = 22.2%	26 vs 21 peers	8.3%	+2.1

On-chainUsage and distribution: active-address growth and holder concentration.

weight 20%, 2/2 features, domain score 20.4

Top-10 holders
lower is better, ethplorer
pct 9 vs 19
10.0% weight, +0.9
Top-10 holder shares: (54.5% + 15.2% + 3.6% + 2.0% + 1.8% + 1.7% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.2%)
Σ (54.5% + 15.2% + 3.6% + 2.0% + 1.8% + 1.7% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.2%) = 84.7%
Active-address growth
higher is better, santiment
pct 31 vs 24
10.0% weight, +3.1
Daily active addresses, first 30-day mean: 81.3
Daily active addresses, last 30-day mean: 101.7
window: 90
(101.7 − 81.3) ÷ 81.3 = 25.1%

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
Top-10 holders lower is better, ethplorer	Top-10 holder shares: (54.5% + 15.2% + 3.6% + 2.0% + 1.8% + 1.7% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.2%)	Σ (54.5% + 15.2% + 3.6% + 2.0% + 1.8% + 1.7% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.6% + 1.2%) = 84.7%	9 vs 19 peers	10.0%	+0.9
Active-address growth higher is better, santiment	Daily active addresses, first 30-day mean: 81.3 Daily active addresses, last 30-day mean: 101.7 window: 90	(101.7 − 81.3) ÷ 81.3 = 25.1%	31 vs 24 peers	10.0%	+3.1

SocialAttention: is social interest rising ahead of price?

weight 10%, 2/3 features, domain score 1.8

Social trend
higher is better, santiment
not scored
Santiment social volume needs DYOR_SANTIMENT_API_KEY
Sentiment
higher is better, coingecko
pct 0 vs 20
5.0% weight, +0.0
Community up-votes: 0.0%
0.0% ÷ 100 = 0.0%
Watchlists
higher is better, coingecko
pct 4 vs 26
5.0% weight, +0.2
CoinGecko watchlists: 19.95K
19.95K = 19.95K

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
Social trend higher is better, santiment	n/a	Santiment social volume needs DYOR_SANTIMENT_API_KEY	n/a	n/a	n/a
Sentiment higher is better, coingecko	Community up-votes: 0.0%	0.0% ÷ 100 = 0.0%	0 vs 20 peers	5.0%	+0.0
Watchlists higher is better, coingecko	CoinGecko watchlists: 19.95K	19.95K = 19.95K	4 vs 26 peers	5.0%	+0.2

DevelopersBuilder activity: is the team still shipping, especially in a downturn?

weight 15%, 1/1 features, domain score 54.7

Dev activity
higher is better, santiment
pct 55 vs 22
15.0% weight, +8.2
Dev-activity events in window: 1.70K
days with data: 90
1.70K ÷ 90 = 18.9/day

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
Dev activity higher is better, santiment	Dev-activity events in window: 1.70K days with data: 90	1.70K ÷ 90 = 18.9/day	55 vs 22 peers	15.0%	+8.2

Composite

Domain	Weight	Renormalized	Domain score	Points
Fundamentals(required)	30%	30.0%	39.7	+11.9
Tokenomics	25%	25.0%	61.0	+15.3
On-chain	20%	20.0%	20.4	+4.1
Social	10%	10.0%	1.8	+0.2
Developers	15%	15.0%	54.7	+8.2
Raw score = Σ points				39.6

Gate: hard disqualifiers

Each rule is checked against the figures shown; missing data never trips a rule. The strictest tripped rule sets the ceiling.

unverified_contractinactive
Contract verified (Sourcify): yes, trips when False
If tripped: zeroes the score
anonymous_teaminactive
Team anonymous: n/a, trips when True
If tripped: caps the score at 40
no_auditpass
Audit on record (DefiLlama): yes, trips when False
If tripped: caps the score at 50
extreme_fdv_mcappass
FDV / MCAP: 1.01x, trips above 10x
If tripped: caps the score at 40
dead_tokenpass
Days since last GitHub push (liquity): 0, trips at 180 days or more
Santiment dev events in window: 1.70K, > 0 overrules a stale GitHub org
24h volume: $836.01K, trips below $1,000
If tripped: zeroes the score

No rule tripped, so the final score is the raw score: 39.6

Rule	Evidence	If tripped	Result
unverified_contract	Contract verified (Sourcify): yes, trips when False	zeroes the score	inactive
anonymous_team	Team anonymous: n/a, trips when True	caps the score at 40	inactive
no_audit	Audit on record (DefiLlama): yes, trips when False	caps the score at 50	pass
extreme_fdv_mcap	FDV / MCAP: 1.01x, trips above 10x	caps the score at 40	pass
dead_token	Days since last GitHub push (liquity): 0, trips at 180 days or more Santiment dev events in window: 1.70K, > 0 overrules a stale GitHub org 24h volume: $836.01K, trips below $1,000	zeroes the score	pass
No rule tripped, so the final score is the raw score			39.6

Tier

A (high conviction) 80+B (qualified) 60+C (watchlist) 40+D (avoid) 0+

39.6 maps to D (avoid). 60% of plus or minus 20% weight perturbations keep this tier. Coverage 12/15 of this class's features (80%). medium confidence.

Peer comparison

pancakeswap-token

63.6

B (qualified)

benqi

62.4

B (qualified)

uniswap

60.2

B (qualified)

stargate-finance

59.9

C (watchlist)

gmx

59.2

C (watchlist)

curve-dao-token

58.0

C (watchlist)

aave

57.2

C (watchlist)

sky

56.7

C (watchlist)

sushi

55.6

C (watchlist)

yearn-finance

55.2

C (watchlist)

rocket-pool

55.0

C (watchlist)

jito-governance-token

53.8

C (watchlist)

In one paragraph

Liquity (LQTY), DeFi protocol: score 39.6/100, tier D (avoid), rank #36 of 67 same-class peers. Domains, 0 to 100, with each one's weight in this class's composite: fundamentals 39.7/100 (weight 30%), tokenomics 61.0/100 (weight 25%), on-chain 20.4/100 (weight 20%), social 1.8/100 (weight 10%), developers 54.7/100 (weight 15%). Data coverage 12/15 features (80%), confidence medium, 60% tier-stable. Gate flags: none. Advisories: real yield 0.5% below 4.5% treasury hurdle. All figures are already on a 0 to 100 scale; do not rescale.

About this page

This is Liquity's permanent DYOR page, scored from the board run of 2026-10-08 against 66 other DeFi protocol tokens. Scores are 0 to 100; the tier maps A at 80 or above, B at 60, C at 40, D below. Every figure above shows its raw inputs, formula, percentile and weight; see the methodology for how the classes, gates and weights work. For today's numbers, run a live analysis. Research aid, not financial advice.

Other DeFi protocol tokens on the board: pancakeswap-token (63.6/100), benqi (62.4/100), uniswap (60.2/100), stargate-finance (59.9/100), gmx (59.2/100), curve-dao-token (58/100), aave (57.2/100), sky (56.7/100). All scored tokens