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 single entity can halt, freeze, or censor the chain (B5=0), the project is fundamentally not decentralized - regardless of how well it scores on other criteria.

A project with excellent validator distribution, diverse clients, and fair launch is still centralized if one admin key can pause everything. The kill-switch is a binary property: either you have one or you don't.

The 1.0 cap is harsh by design. It sends a clear message: "This project may have many good properties, but it cannot be considered decentralized."

We display the uncapped score for transparency, so users can see what the project would score without the penalty.

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 is our reference point for maximum decentralization. Not because it's perfect, but because it's the oldest, most battle-tested example of a truly decentralized network.

• No premine, no VC allocation, no foundation treasury
• No single entity can halt or censor the network
• No fundamental protocol changes since 2009
• Satoshi disappeared - the project survives without its creator

When evaluating any project, ask: "How does this compare to Bitcoin?"

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

A highly centralized project can be fast, cheap, and user-friendly. A decentralized project can be slow, expensive, and clunky. We measure decentralization, nothing else.

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.