Methodology

Chain Score (40%) measures technical decentralization - can the network survive attacks? This is fundamental: without a resilient network, nothing else matters.

Control Score (40%) measures governance decentralization - who actually controls the protocol? A technically decentralized network means nothing if one entity can change the rules, halt the chain, or steal funds through upgrades.

Fairness Score (20%) measures launch and distribution fairness. This matters less for ongoing decentralization but reflects the project's values and long-term incentive alignment. A 70% VC premine creates different dynamics than a fair launch.

Chain and Control are equally weighted because both are necessary conditions for decentralization. Fairness is weighted lower because it's a one-time historical fact that affects but doesn't determine ongoing decentralization.

If a project has an architectural kill-switch (B5=0), it is fundamentally not decentralized, regardless of how well it scores on other criteria.

B5=0 applies to: Smart contract pause functions (admin keys), documented emergency stops (explicit "safe mode"), governance with halt-authority (foundation/council can stop chain by design), and centralized sequencers (L2s where one entity controls transaction inclusion).

B5=0 does NOT apply to: Bug-crashes (unintentional outages), coordinated restarts after crashes, or low validator concentration (assessed separately in B1/B3).

Bug-crash = technical immaturity. Kill-switch = architectural centralization. Different problems, different scores. We display the uncapped score for transparency.

We selected criteria that are measurable, meaningful, and resistant to gaming. Each criterion captures a distinct aspect of decentralization that cannot be easily faked.

Each criterion is scored 0-10. Within each category, all criteria are equally weighted. Here's what the scores mean:

Bitcoin currently scores highest in this framework. This is an outcome of the criteria, not a predetermined choice. Key characteristics that contribute to its score:

• No premine, no VC allocation, no foundation treasury (C1, C2)
• No documented halt or censorship capability (B5)
• Limited protocol changes since launch (B6)
• Project continuity after founder departure

Other projects may score higher as they evolve or as framework criteria are refined.

Decentralization is not the same as quality. We deliberately exclude:

• Price / Market Cap - Not a decentralization metric
• TVL - Measures adoption, not decentralization
• TPS / Performance - Often traded for centralization
• User Experience - Orthogonal to decentralization
• Team Reputation - Subjective and gameable

This framework focuses on decentralization metrics only. Other factors may be relevant for different use cases.

We measure what's measurable and document transparently where judgment is required. Each criterion falls into one of two categories:

For expert assessments, each value includes:

• Source links with dates
• Reasoning for the specific score
• Known limitations or caveats
• Full documentation in the project source files

No API can tell you if a foundation can halt a chain or if a team controls the brand. These require judgment - but that judgment is documented, sourced, and open to challenge.