Lombard

BARDDeFi protocol✓ verified✓ audited

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

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

18.6/100

D (avoid)

coverage 67%, high confidence, 100% tier-stable, rank #60/67

Share:Post on X

Compare with other tokens

Price

$0.136

Market cap

$49.62M

FDV

$136.41M

24h volume

$1.25M

24h change

+1.0%

From ATH

-92%

Circulating

363.75M

Total supply

1.00B

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

37.4

tokenomics

1.7

onchain

8.0

social

0.0

dev

35.7

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)

githuboff

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%, 3/4 features, domain score 37.4

P/F
lower is better, defillama
pct 39 vs 25
10.0% weight, +3.9
Market cap: $49.62M
Fees (total1y): $4.32M
$49.62M ÷ $4.32M = 11.48x
P/S
lower is better, defillama
pct 9 vs 23
10.0% weight, +0.9
Market cap: $49.62M
Revenue (total1y): $350.91K
$49.62M ÷ $350.91K = 141x
MC / TVL
lower is better, defillama
pct 64 vs 26
10.0% weight, +6.4
Market cap: $49.62M
TVL: $681.03M
$49.62M ÷ $681.03M = 0.07x
Real yield
higher is better, defillama
not scored
defillama responded but the ratio is undefined (zero denominator or no shared window)

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
P/F lower is better, defillama	Market cap: $49.62M Fees (total1y): $4.32M	$49.62M ÷ $4.32M = 11.48x	39 vs 25 peers	10.0%	+3.9
P/S lower is better, defillama	Market cap: $49.62M Revenue (total1y): $350.91K	$49.62M ÷ $350.91K = 141x	9 vs 23 peers	10.0%	+0.9
MC / TVL lower is better, defillama	Market cap: $49.62M TVL: $681.03M	$49.62M ÷ $681.03M = 0.07x	64 vs 26 peers	10.0%	+6.4
Real yield higher is better, defillama	n/a	defillama responded but the ratio is undefined (zero denominator or no shared window)	n/a	n/a	n/a

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

weight 25%, 3/5 features, domain score 1.7

FDV / MCAP
lower is better, coingecko
pct 0 vs 26
8.3% weight, +0.0
Total supply: 1.00B
Circulating supply: 363.75M
1.00B ÷ 363.75M = 2.75x
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 0 vs 26
8.3% weight, +0.0
Circulating supply: 363.75M
Total supply: 1.00B
363.75M ÷ 1.00B = 36.4%
Token sink
higher is better, defillama
pct 5 vs 21
8.3% weight, +0.4
Holders revenue (total1y): $0.00
Revenue (total1y): $350.91K
$0.00 ÷ $350.91K = 0.0%

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
FDV / MCAP lower is better, coingecko	Total supply: 1.00B Circulating supply: 363.75M	1.00B ÷ 363.75M = 2.75x	0 vs 26 peers	8.3%	+0.0
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: 363.75M Total supply: 1.00B	363.75M ÷ 1.00B = 36.4%	0 vs 26 peers	8.3%	+0.0
Token sink higher is better, defillama	Holders revenue (total1y): $0.00 Revenue (total1y): $350.91K	$0.00 ÷ $350.91K = 0.0%	5 vs 21 peers	8.3%	+0.4

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

weight 20%, 2/2 features, domain score 8.0

Top-10 holders
lower is better, ethplorer
pct 12 vs 19
10.0% weight, +1.1
Top-10 holder shares: (25.0% + 20.0% + 15.9% + 4.4% + 4.0% + 3.7% + 2.8% + 2.2% + 2.0% + 2.0%)
Σ (25.0% + 20.0% + 15.9% + 4.4% + 4.0% + 3.7% + 2.8% + 2.2% + 2.0% + 2.0%) = 82.0%
Active-address growth
higher is better, santiment
pct 5 vs 24
10.0% weight, +0.5
Daily active addresses, first 30-day mean: 123.7
Daily active addresses, last 30-day mean: 106.7
window: 90
(106.7 − 123.7) ÷ 123.7 = -13.7%

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
Top-10 holders lower is better, ethplorer	Top-10 holder shares: (25.0% + 20.0% + 15.9% + 4.4% + 4.0% + 3.7% + 2.8% + 2.2% + 2.0% + 2.0%)	Σ (25.0% + 20.0% + 15.9% + 4.4% + 4.0% + 3.7% + 2.8% + 2.2% + 2.0% + 2.0%) = 82.0%	12 vs 19 peers	10.0%	+1.1
Active-address growth higher is better, santiment	Daily active addresses, first 30-day mean: 123.7 Daily active addresses, last 30-day mean: 106.7 window: 90	(106.7 − 123.7) ÷ 123.7 = -13.7%	5 vs 24 peers	10.0%	+0.5

SocialAttention: is social interest rising ahead of price?

weight 10%, 1/3 features, domain score 0.0

Social trend
higher is better, santiment
not scored
Santiment social volume needs DYOR_SANTIMENT_API_KEY
Sentiment
higher is better, coingecko
not scored
coingecko responded but the ratio is undefined (zero denominator or no shared window)
Watchlists
higher is better, coingecko
pct 0 vs 26
10.0% weight, +0.0
CoinGecko watchlists: 3.00K
3.00K = 3.00K

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	n/a	coingecko responded but the ratio is undefined (zero denominator or no shared window)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Watchlists higher is better, coingecko	CoinGecko watchlists: 3.00K	3.00K = 3.00K	0 vs 26 peers	10.0%	+0.0

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

weight 15%, 1/1 features, domain score 35.7

Dev activity
higher is better, santiment
pct 36 vs 22
15.0% weight, +5.4
Dev-activity events in window: 445
days with data: 90
445 ÷ 90 = 4.9/day

Feature	Raw figures	Calculation	Percentile	Weight	Points
Dev activity higher is better, santiment	Dev-activity events in window: 445 days with data: 90	445 ÷ 90 = 4.9/day	36 vs 22 peers	15.0%	+5.4

Composite

Domain	Weight	Renormalized	Domain score	Points
Fundamentals(required)	30%	30.0%	37.4	+11.2
Tokenomics	25%	25.0%	1.7	+0.4
On-chain	20%	20.0%	8.0	+1.6
Social	10%	10.0%	0.0	+0.0
Developers	15%	15.0%	35.7	+5.4
Raw score = Σ points				18.6

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: 2.75x, trips above 10x
If tripped: caps the score at 40
dead_tokenpass
Days since last GitHub push: n/a, trips at 180 days or more
Santiment dev events in window: 445, > 0 overrules a stale GitHub org
24h volume: $1.25M, trips below $1,000
If tripped: zeroes the score

No rule tripped, so the final score is the raw score: 18.6

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: 2.75x, trips above 10x	caps the score at 40	pass
dead_token	Days since last GitHub push: n/a, trips at 180 days or more Santiment dev events in window: 445, > 0 overrules a stale GitHub org 24h volume: $1.25M, trips below $1,000	zeroes the score	pass
No rule tripped, so the final score is the raw score			18.6

Tier

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

18.6 maps to D (avoid). 100% of plus or minus 20% weight perturbations keep this tier. Coverage 10/15 of this class's features (67%). high 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

Lombard (BARD), DeFi protocol: score 18.6/100, tier D (avoid), rank #60 of 67 same-class peers. Domains, 0 to 100, with each one's weight in this class's composite: fundamentals 37.4/100 (weight 30%), tokenomics 1.7/100 (weight 25%), on-chain 8.0/100 (weight 20%), social 0.0/100 (weight 10%), developers 35.7/100 (weight 15%). Data coverage 10/15 features (67%), confidence high, 100% tier-stable. Gate flags: none. All figures are already on a 0 to 100 scale; do not rescale.

About this page

This is Lombard'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