How it works
Three questions for every project, answered from public facts and set beside what similar launches did before. Then one verdict, with the sources shown.
Automatic checks on public data: can anyone read the contract, can the team change the rules in secret, can the token be sold.
How much the project is worth at launch, how many tokens can be sold on day one and how many are released in the first year. Set beside what similar launches did.
Every promise is public, has a date, and is checked on the day it falls due.
Then one verdict
With the reasons and every source. Today the NOTR team writes it. Who decides
Anyone can become one. No diploma and no followers needed, only a record that anyone can check.
1Write a first review
Pick a project that has just launched or is about to. Give your verdict, your arguments with sources, and what would prove you wrong.
2Write to us
Write to us on Telegram or by email. We send you a short form and answer your questions. No registration. The team enters your review by hand on your public profile.
3Facts decide
When the dates pass, the public record shows who was right. Every call stays on your profile, good or bad.
4Next: rating and levels
Once the first round shows the format works, the rating opens. A passport check, a starting rating of 100, a stake on each call. Right calls raise it, wrong ones lower it, and you move up from Newcomer to Expert.
The same process, step by step
01 · Start
We take launches that have a date and public information. A project can also submit itself. We write down the day we first looked, and everything later is measured from it.
What it produces
02 · Question 1
Seven automatic checks on public data. Four are hard: fail one and the project stays off the main list. Three are soft and show as warnings.
What you see
03 · Question 2
Opening valuation, supply trading on day one, what unlocks in the first year, who bought at what price. The same fields for every project. Where a number sits in a place where buyers have lost money before, it gets an attention mark, and we show what similar past launches did.
What you see
04 · Question 3
Every promise is public, has a date, and is checked on the day it falls due. If two statements differ, we ask the project, give it 7 days, and publish its answer unedited.
What you see
05 · Verdict
The three answers sit next to the verdict, with the sources and what would change it. At launch the NOTR team writes it, and says so. Once verified analysts have a record, their weighted vote takes over.
What you see
06 · After
Dates pass and the ledger updates. A verdict is never deleted: it stays on the record with its date, right or wrong. Analysts who called it right gain rating, those who called it wrong lose some.
What you see
Worked example
The same steps, in the order every project goes through them. We follow one made-up project so you can see what each step produces and what you would read on a real page.
Pathforge is a made-up price-feed (oracle) project. Every number below is invented, but every field is a real field on a real NOTR review, built from the same components as the project pages.
Open the full Pathforge pageWe take launches that have a date and public information, and any project can submit itself. Being listed is not an endorsement. We record the date we first looked, because everything later is measured from it.
Seven checks on public data. Four are hard: fail one and the project stays off the main list. Three are soft and show as warnings. Pathforge passes with 2 warnings: three of six engineers are pseudonymous; supply is concentrated, and a large investor unlock is coming.
Contract source verifiedDecides entry
Source verified.
No hidden mint or admin keysDecides entry
Feed upgrades need a timelocked multisig.
Token can be soldDecides entry
Transfers are unrestricted.
Official links match the contractDecides entry
Links match the deployed contracts.
Audit publishedShown as a warning
Oracle audit published; findings fixed in a follow-up.
Team can be identifiedShown as a warning
Three of six engineers are pseudonymous.
Supply and vesting are publicShown as a warning
Supply is concentrated, and a large investor unlock is coming.
These checks run automatically on public data, before any review is written. A failed hard check keeps a project off the main list. Warnings stay visible, and the verdict weighs how much they matter.
The same fields for every project: opening valuation $260M, 10.4x its last private round, 10% of supply trading on day one, 20% unlocking in the next 12 months. When a number sits where buyers have lost money before, it gets an attention mark. Pathforge gets 4 of them. A mark is a pointer, never a verdict and never a forecast.
Attention marks
Thin float backed by our data
Only 10% of supply traded at launch. In our backtest, 17 of the 18 launches with under 15% on day one ended below their first-day price (median -85%).
Big jump over the last round not yet testable
Opened at 10.4x the valuation of its last private round. Not yet testable: private round prices are not in any free dataset, so we record them in every review.
A promise was missed recorded fact
1 of 5 dated promises in the ledger are marked missed.
Questions unanswered recorded fact
The project did not reply within the 7-day window.
Marks point at structures that have hurt buyers before. They do not remove a project from the list, they are not a forecast, and they never replace the verdict. How each mark was tested
The price
Opening valuation (FDV)
$260M
Last private round
$25M
Seed, Jun 2024
Jump over the last round
10.4x
Valuation / yearly revenue
433x
Revenue $600K a year
The supply
Trading at launch
10%
Share of total supply
Unlocks in next 12 months
20%
Share of total supply
The full unlock calendar, in dates and amounts, is on the Onchain & whales tab.
Who paid what
| Group | Share of supply | Paid vs opening price | Lock-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public buyers | 8% | 1x | None |
| Investors | 25% | 0.08x | 6-month cliff, then monthly over 18 months |
| Team and advisers | 20% | – | 12-month cliff, 24-month vesting |
A group that paid 0.2x of the opening price is sitting on a five-fold gain from day one. That is not wrong in itself, but buyers should know it and know when that group can sell.
What similar launches did
Launches with an opening valuation of $150M–300M
17 launches · 82% below first-day price · median −65%
Launches with under 15% of supply trading on day one
18 launches · 94% below first-day price · median −85%
From our backtest of real launches, as context for Pathforge and never as a forecast. Explore the data
We hold the project's numbers up against our backtest of 77 real launches. The two lines at the bottom of the price section above are that comparison: for example, 17 launches in the same valuation band, 82% of them below their first-day price. It is how we say "buyers have been here before" with data instead of opinion.
Each promise is public, with a date, and is checked on the day it falls due. Pathforge has met 3 of 5, missed 1 ("Publish Q3 treasury report"), and 1 is still in progress. We asked the project about it before publishing and show its answer exactly as written, or the fact that there was none.
All 12 feeds live within one week of the target date.
One audit completed; no findings above low severity.
Reached 5 integrations, though usage is concentrated in the top 2.
No report has been published as of this page's last update.
14 of 25 assets live; feed usage is still concentrated in a few partners.
Right of reply · No response yet
Pathforge was invited to respond to this page on Sep 20, 2026 and has not yet replied.
The three answers sit side by side, and the verdict goes next to them. At launch the NOTR team writes it on public facts and says so. Once verified analysts have a record, their weighted vote takes over.
Verdict · written by the NOTR team (example)
Not yet
Entry checks pass with two warnings. It opened at 10.4x the valuation of its last round, only 10% of supply traded at launch, and 20% unlocks within a year. One dated promise is missed and the project has not replied to our questions. None of this says the project will fail. It says a buyer should wait for the answers below.
What would change it
Is it safe?
Passed, with 2 warnings
No hard check failed. Soft checks are shown as warnings.
Entry checks →Is the price and structure fair?
4 attention marks
Thin float · Big jump over the last round · A promise was missed · Questions unanswered
Price & structure →Does it keep its word?
3 of 5 promises met
1 missed. Reply to our questions: no reply.
Promise ledger →Dates pass and the ledger updates. A verdict is never deleted: it stays on the record with the date it was given, whether it proved right or wrong. When analysts are voting, those who were right gain rating and those who were wrong lose some. That is how a track record forms that no one can buy.
Attention marks
Marks are a short list of structures that have hurt buyers before. Each one says when it appears, and what our data shows about it.
Thin float
backed by our data
Under 15% of total supply trades on day one.
17 of 18 such launches in our backtest ended below their first-day price (median -85%), against 76% of the rest.
Very small launch
backed by our data
The opening valuation is under $50 million.
14 of 16 such launches are below their first-day price (median -87%), the weakest valuation group in our data.
Rich price
outside study
The opening valuation is $1 billion or more.
Memento Research found none of the 28 launches of 2025 that opened at $1 billion or more was above its launch price. Our sample has only 4 such launches, too few to confirm it.
Big jump over the last round
not yet testable
It opens at 5x or more the valuation of its last private round.
Private round prices are not in free data. We record them in every review and will test the mark on our own record.
Big unlock ahead
not yet testable
More than 25% of supply unlocks in the next 12 months.
Public price data does not track unlocks (we checked). We record the unlock calendar in every review and will test the mark on our own record.
A promise was missed
recorded fact
A dated promise in the ledger is marked missed.
A recorded fact with its source, not a price signal.
Questions unanswered
recorded fact
The project did not reply within 7 days, or declined to.
We always show the questions and the date we asked.
Critical red flag open
recorded fact
A critical issue found in the review is still open.
Shown with the source of the finding.
A mark never removes a project from the list, is not a forecast and does not replace the verdict. The thresholds are a starting point built on a small sample. If the data says they should move, we will move them and say so. See the test results
Entry checks
Every project gets automatic checks of what can be verified from public data. This keeps the main list for projects that deserve a closer look.
Contract source verified
Can anyone read the contract code on a chain explorer?
Decides entryNo hidden mint or admin keys
Can an owner create tokens or take funds without limits?
Decides entryToken can be sold
Can holders actually sell, with no honeypot or blocked transfers?
Decides entryOfficial links match the contract
Do the website, socials and contract point at each other?
Decides entryAudit published
Has an outside firm audited the contracts that hold funds?
Shown as a warningTeam can be identified
Are the people behind it named, with a checkable history?
Shown as a warningSupply and vesting are public
Is it clear who holds the supply and when it unlocks?
Shown as a warningFail a hard check and the project is not listed with the others. It appears under “Didn't pass entry” with the reasons, and can come back once it fixes them. Soft checks never block a project. They show as warnings, and the verdict weighs how much they matter.
The evidence
Each check is marked met, partly met or not met from public data. We do not add them into one number: a total would hide which check failed. The checklist is context for whoever writes the verdict, never the verdict itself.
Whether real usage — deposits, trades, active wallets — is growing, flat, or shrinking.
Example sources: Chain explorers · Public dashboards · Protocol analytics pages
Steady or growing activity from a broad, diversifying set of wallets.
Activity concentrated in a handful of wallets, or usage trending down.
Whether the people building the project are identifiable and have a checkable history.
Example sources: Team pages · LinkedIn / public profiles · Prior project history
Named founders and leads with a verifiable, consistent track record.
A fully pseudonymous team with no cross-checkable history.
Whether the contracts that hold funds have been independently reviewed, and what was found.
Example sources: Published audit reports · Bug bounty pages · GitHub repositories
Recent audits from recognized firms with findings resolved.
No audit, an outdated audit, or open high/critical findings.
How much supply is locked up, who holds it, and how large future unlocks are.
Example sources: Tokenomics docs · Vesting contracts · Chain explorers
A public schedule with small, gradual unlocks and broad distribution.
Large cliffs concentrated with insiders, due soon, with no public schedule.
Whether the team ships what it said it would, roughly when it said it would.
Example sources: Public roadmaps · Changelogs · Community announcements
A track record of shipping committed milestones on or near schedule.
Repeated delays, silent scope cuts, or missed milestones.
Whether anyone can see what the treasury holds and how it's being spent.
Example sources: Treasury wallet addresses · Spending reports · Governance forums
A public treasury address with regular, itemized spending reports.
An undisclosed treasury or reporting that has lapsed.
Whether there is a named, jurisdictioned legal entity standing behind the project.
Example sources: Terms of service · Corporate registries · Whitepaper disclosures
A named entity, disclosed jurisdiction, and terms covering the product.
No named entity or jurisdiction disclosed anywhere in public materials.
Whether trading volume and social activity look organic or artificially inflated.
Example sources: Exchange volume data · Social listening tools · Chain explorers
Volume and sentiment that move in line with real product news.
Volume spikes or coordinated posting with no matching real-world event.
The checklist for Tidewater Swap (fictional), check by check
Transaction volume, active wallets, and contract usage trends over the last 90 days.
Met
Daily swappers up 22% over 90 days; volume spread across 400+ pools.
Source: Onchain explorerWhether core contributors have confirmed, cross-checked identities and a track record.
Met
Five of seven core contributors verified; two engineers remain pseudonymous.
Source: Project websiteCoverage and severity of findings from independent smart-contract audits.
Met
Two independent audits; all high-severity findings resolved and re-verified.
Source: Audit reportHow concentrated supply is and whether the vesting schedule is public and being followed.
Partly met
Linear team vesting, but a large investor tranche unlocks in Q1 2027.
Source: Onchain explorerShare of publicly committed roadmap milestones the team actually delivered on time.
Met
7 of 10 roadmap milestones delivered on time; the v2 router slipped by 7 weeks.
Source: Project websiteWhether treasury wallets are disclosed and spending is reported on a regular cadence.
Partly met
Fee vault address is public; spending reports are published semi-annually.
Source: Onchain explorerExistence of a named legal entity, jurisdiction, and terms covering the token or product.
Partly met
Operating company named; jurisdiction disclosed, no terms covering the token.
Source: Project websiteWash-trading, coordinated social activity, and other red flags detected in market data.
Met
Isolated wash-trading in two small pools; none on the main pairs.
Source: Onchain explorerMet: clear public evidence. Partly met: some evidence, with gaps. Not met: the evidence is missing or points the other way.
Who decides
Where we are today
At launch, the verdict is written by the NOTR team, on public facts only, with every source and date shown. It is an editorial verdict, and we say so on every review.
Analysts can join now, in a first round. You send a written review with sources, and the team enters it by hand on your public profile. Rating, levels and the passport check come next. Once analysts have a record, their weighted vote takes over from the editorial verdict. We will announce the switch publicly, and every earlier verdict stays on the record, right or wrong.
Become an analystEveryone who votes is a real person, checked against a passport by an outside provider, with a public nickname. One person, one account. They answer one question: is this project ready? Each writes why and stakes part of their own rating.
Everyone starts at 100. A person's rating comes only from past calls that turned out right. The more rating staked, the more the vote weighs. A crowd of new accounts cannot decide a verdict: all Newcomers together count for at most 25%.
Votes are hidden until the voting window closes, so nobody can copy the loudest voice or follow a leader. Then every vote and reason becomes public next to the nickname.
When a promise falls due, the facts decide who was right. People who were right gain rating. People who were wrong lose what they staked. That loss is what makes a vote worth reading.
Newcomer
under 500
Everyone starts here, at 100. Can vote and stake up to half of their rating. All Newcomers together weigh at most 25%.
Member
500–1,499
Has a record of right calls. Full weight for the stake placed.
Analyst
1,500–2,499
A trusted record. Can be picked for random review panels.
Expert
2,500 and up
The strongest record. Reviews flagged votes and appeals.
Who staked what on an example page, and how the percentage, the verdict and the agreement label fall out.
Pathforge (fictional)
Ready 300 REPNot yet 270 REPtotal 570 REP
300 ÷ 570 = 53% ready. That falls between 35% and 64%, so the verdict is Not yet, and because the leading side holds under 60%, it is labeled Contested. Two voters said ready, three said not yet, but weight follows the stake, not the headcount.
The Newcomer cap in action: same project, same votes, with and without it.
Blorp Coin (fictional): a wave of new accounts
Five brand-new accounts all vote ready within days, with short, excited reasons. They placed 58% of all the stake. The established voters, who checked the contracts, mostly say not ready.
Without the cap61% ready · Not yet
With the cap (Newcomers count for at most 25%)30% ready · Not ready
Without the cap the crowd would pull the verdict up to Not yet. With it, the verdict stays at Not ready. The same project would not have been listed at all: it already failed the entry checks.
Next to the verdict sits an open poll. Anyone can answer the same question and leave a comment, without a passport check. It is a mood meter: where the crowd stands.
The open poll never changes the verdict, because anyone can join it with any number of accounts. A big gap between the poll and the verified voters is worth reading the reasons for.
Tiers and money
NOTR cannot fine a project that never agreed to it. So there are two clear tiers, and the money rules are the same for everyone.
A project that came to NOTR on its own.
A project that is already trading and did not apply.
We never judge a project by its token price alone. A project that keeps its promises is not at fault if the market ignores it.
See how the bond worksFAQ
Partly. The problem page and our reviews of real projects (LEVER, Grvt) use real, sourced data. The demo project pages use fictional projects and numbers to show how a review looks; they carry an "Illustrative data" label. Live market numbers come from public sources.
No. A verdict says whether a project looks ready on the public record. It never says buy, sell or hold. The decision, and the risk, is yours. Nothing here is investment advice.
In two layers. First, automatic entry checks on public data: verified contract, no hidden mint or admin keys, a token that can be sold, links that match. A project that fails one stays off the main list and is shown with the reasons. Second, every project that passes gets the same review: price and structure, a public promise ledger, and one verdict with the sources shown.
A short flag on a structure that has hurt buyers before, such as a thin float on day one, a very high opening price, or a big unlock ahead. A mark says where to look first. It does not remove a project from the list, it is not a forecast, and it never replaces the verdict. Each mark shows what our data says about it, and is labelled "our method" where we have no data yet.
No. The backtest is a record of what 77 real launches did, shown beside a review so you can see what buyers of similar launches went through. It is context. It does not set the verdict by itself, and a group with too few launches is labelled that way. The data and the method are open on the problem page.
At launch, the NOTR team writes it from public facts, and every review says so. As verified analysts join and build a record of right and wrong calls, their weighted vote takes over, and we will announce the switch.
Every project we review gets our questions and 7 days to reply. Replies are published next to the review, unedited. If we got a fact wrong and the project sends a source, we correct it and date the correction. If a project does not reply, the review says so.
No. A project pays a fixed fee for the review, and the fee is the same whatever the verdict. Projects cannot vote or pay voters, and anyone linked to a project cannot vote on it. The right of reply is free.
No. There are 8 public checks (onchain activity, team, audit and so on), and each is shown as met, partly met or not met, with its source. We do not add them into one number: a total would hide which check failed and look more exact than it is.
People who passed a passport check with an outside provider, one account each. Their nickname, rating, reasons and every past call are public. NOTR does not keep the passport documents.
Right now, in the first round: write to us on Telegram or by email and we send you a short form. Fill it with a first review: your verdict, your arguments with sources and what would prove you wrong. No registration. Later, when the vote opens, you pass a passport check and start with the standard rating. A call that proves right raises your rating and the weight of your vote, a call that proves wrong lowers it. Your record is public.
No. Every voter needs a passport check, all Newcomers together count for at most 25%, votes stay sealed until the window closes, and votes that look coordinated are flagged for review.
Illustrative data. These are fictional example projects for demonstration purposes only — not a real assessment of any actual project.
Not investment advice. NOTR publishes public data, analysis, and risk signals — never a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold.