Every Antelux score is a weighted composite of four pillars, converted to a 0–100 scale and mapped to a letter grade. The formula is mechanical (no analyst overrides, no pay-for-play), and every coin page shows the exact inputs behind its grade.
Market standing · Supply dilution
Fee revenue vs. market cap · Value secured vs. market cap · 24h turnover · Renormalised, not zeroed
Trailing 7-day return · Trailing 30-day return
Realised volatility · Drawdown from all-time high
Each pillar is itself a composite of sub-factors. Here is what every one measures today, why it earns its weight, and what is still missing from it.
The largest weight, because durability compounds. Fundamentals ask: if the market closed for a year, would this network still matter when it reopened? Today it is measured on two public inputs, and the table says which.
| Sub-factor | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Market standing (65%) | Where the coin sits in the market-cap table. Size is not quality, but a network that has held a top position through cycles has demonstrated something a new listing has not. |
| Supply dilution (35%) | The share of max supply already circulating. A coin with most of its emission still ahead faces structural sell pressure; an uncapped supply scores neutral, leaning cautious. |
| Not yet measured | Treasury runway, team track record, and whether fees accrue to the token rather than a foundation all belong here and are not in the score today. Each needs data beyond public market feeds and will be announced when it lands. |
Price can be painted; paying to use a network is harder to fake. This pillar reads real chain and protocol data, and says so plainly when an asset has none.
| Sub-factor | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Fee revenue vs. market cap | Fees actually paid by users over 24h, annualised against market cap. The heaviest sub-weight, because it is the closest thing crypto has to an earnings yield. |
| Value secured vs. market cap | Total value locked on the chain or in the protocol, measured against what the market values the token at. |
| 24h turnover | Volume relative to market cap. The one measure available for every asset, so it is what an asset with no protocol footprint is scored on. |
| Renormalised, not zeroed | Bitcoin and most memecoins have no protocol reporting fees or TVL. They are ranked on the measures that do exist rather than penalised for evidence that cannot exist, and each coin page names which were used. |
Deliberately third in weight: momentum tells you about timing, not quality. It stops a structurally strong coin in a downtrend from looking like a table-pounding buy today.
| Sub-factor | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Trailing 7-day return (55%) | The most recent week of price action, weighted slightly heavier because it is the freshest read on where participation is going. |
| Trailing 30-day return (45%) | The month behind it, so one hot week cannot fake a trend and one bad week cannot erase one. |
| Not yet measured | Return relative to the coin's own sector, and volume consistency across weeks, are on the roadmap and not in the score today. |
The veto pillar. Risk is inverted: a high risk reading pulls the composite down, so a token in a violent drawdown cannot earn an A no matter how strong everything else looks. Today it is a volatility-and-drawdown measure, and we would rather say that plainly than imply coverage we do not have.
| Sub-factor | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Realised volatility | The size of a typical day's move, measured from the past week of hourly prices. A week rather than a single day on purpose: one session cannot separate a genuinely jumpy token from a calm one having a loud afternoon, and reading it that way made the pillar re-roll every day. |
| Drawdown from all-time high | How far the coin sits below its peak, with an additional penalty applied beyond 70% down. A coin down 85% has demonstrated something structural that a calm recent week does not undo. |
| Not yet measured | Scheduled unlock cliffs, insider wallet concentration, audit history, and governance centralization all belong in this pillar and are not in it today. They need data sources beyond public market feeds. |
Scores are percentile ranks against the rest of the rated universe, not marks against fixed thresholds. Say a coin ranks in the 92nd percentile on fundamentals, 40th on on-chain health, 62nd on momentum, and 91st on risk. Those blend by weight:
That blend is then itself ranked against every other coin's blend, and the resulting percentile is the published composite. The second pass matters: averaging four percentiles pulls hard toward the middle, so without it the top and bottom grades would be mathematically unreachable and almost everything would land in one band.
So a composite of 97 does not mean "97 points out of 100". It means the coin scores higher than 97% of the universe on the weighted blend.
Because the composite is a percentile, each band maps to a share of the universe. Grades are relative: an A means best-in-class among what is currently rated, not that an asset has cleared some absolute bar.
| Grade | Composite | Share | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 92–100 | Top 8% | Best-in-class across the weighted pillars right now. |
| B | 50–91 | Next 42% | Upper half. Strong on some pillars, with a visible tradeoff. |
| C | 20–49 | Next 30% | Below the median. Mixed signals, real diligence needed. |
| D | 8–19 | Next 12% | Weak on most pillars relative to peers. |
| F | <8 | Bottom 8% | Bottom of the rated universe on the weighted blend. |
Relative. Pillar scores are percentile ranks within the rated universe, and the composite is a percentile too, so an A means top 8% of what we currently rate rather than clearing a fixed bar. This is a deliberate choice: thresholds fixed in the abstract sound rigorous but in practice real market data rarely reaches them, which pushes almost every coin into a single band and makes the grade useless for comparing. The tradeoff is honest and worth stating: in a broadly weak market, the best of a weak field still earns an A. Read the grade as "how does this compare to the alternatives", not "is this objectively excellent".
Market inputs refresh on our servers every 15 minutes, around the clock. The published composite is deliberately smoothed: each run blends the newest reading with the previously published score, so a real, sustained move shows up within a few hours while a single noisy reading decays away instead of flipping the grade. Expect small day-to-day drift and occasional band changes after genuinely new information, not constant flickering.
Usually something did happen, just quietly. Volatility picked up over the week, a fading month erodes momentum, or volume dried up relative to market cap. Because scores are relative, a coin can also move because its peers moved while it stood still. The “How this grade was built” panel on every coin page shows exactly which input drove it. Grades also carry a buffer: a composite has to clear a band boundary by a margin before the published grade moves, so a coin sitting on a threshold does not flip back and forth.
No. Grades are computed mechanically from the pillar inputs. There is no analyst override, no partnership program, and no way to sponsor a score. The same formula runs on every coin in the universe.
Because warnings get ignored. Folding risk into the composite at 20% means a deep drawdown or violent price action mathematically caps the grade: you can't get an A with a red-flag pillar. We wrote up the full reasoning in Why Risk Is Weighted at 20% and Inverted.
Market data comes from CoinGecko; chain and protocol data from DefiLlama. Fundamentals blends market-cap rank with real tokenomics: the share of max supply already circulating, so coins facing heavy future emission score lower. On-chain health uses fees actually paid by users and total value secured, both measured against market cap, with 24-hour turnover as the measure that exists for every asset. Momentum blends trailing 7-day and 30-day returns, so one hot week can't fake a trend. Risk combines realised volatility (the size of a typical day's move over the past week) with drawdown depth, adding a penalty beyond 70% below all-time high. Every coin page shows exactly which inputs drove its grade.
On whatever real evidence exists. Bitcoin, most memecoins, and most exchange tokens have no protocol reporting fees or value secured. Each on-chain sub-measure is ranked only against the assets that report it, and the weights renormalise per coin, so an asset is never scored zero for data it cannot have. It does mean an asset judged on turnover alone is being measured more thinly than one with fee and TVL data, and the on-chain panel on each coin page says which case applies.
No. Momentum and turnover together are a large share of the weight, and a thinly traded token in a hot month can score near the top on both. So an A additionally requires at least median fundamentals: a coin in the bottom half of the universe on market standing and tokenomics is capped at B no matter how high its composite runs. The composite score itself is left untouched, so where a cap applies you can see it: a score in the 90s sitting next to a B.
The top 250 by market cap, with stablecoins, wrapped and staked derivatives, tokenised funds, and non-USD pegged assets excluded, since a pegged or 1:1-tracking asset can't be meaningfully graded on momentum or fundamentals. The universe re-forms automatically as coins enter and leave the top 250.
See the methodology applied to a live coin, input by input.
Open a live scorecard