How We Score Crypto Airdrops

What the score means

The Potential Score is a 0-100 editorial rating designed for quick comparison. Higher scores generally indicate stronger evidence, clearer tasks, and better risk-adjusted upside signals. Lower scores often mean unclear tasks, weak traction, heavier friction (like hard KYC), or elevated risk flags.

Core inputs we evaluate

Calculation, manual scores and evidence limits

The main admin editor saves an editorial score supplied by an editor, constrained to 0-100. The scoreboard reads that saved value; it does not recalculate scores from traffic, deadlines or article text on each visit.

When a score change goes through the evidence-validated review workflow, the server uses five component scores, each from 0 to 100: round(0.30 * fundamentals + 0.22 * traction + 0.18 * task_quality + 0.20 * safety + 0.10 * time_to_value). Higher safety means lower assessed risk. Every proposed component requires supporting source evidence. For example, five components all rated 70 produce 70/100; this is an illustration, not a project's actual breakdown.

These weights apply to that review workflow, not retrospectively to every manually entered or historical score. The component assessments themselves are editorial judgments, not objective measurements or payout probabilities. Where a public per-project breakdown is absent, we cannot reconstruct why an exact number was assigned.

No automatic numerical risk cap is enforced by the score-saving code. Risk can lower an editor's rating or lead to a campaign being paused, closed or archived; the 0-100 input bound is not a safety threshold. A high score must never be treated as a security audit.

The scoreboard defaults to saved score descending, then guide update time, opens and record ID descending. Alternate sort modes change ordering, not the saved score. Its active catalogue uses publication status and the recorded end date, so an individual campaign phase may have ended even when the guide remains listed.

Guide modification dates are not source-verification dates. Linked project pages are supporting reading, not independently authenticated evidence merely because they appear in a guide. Points, a token allocation announcement, a claim window and a completed payout are different states. Missing confirmation or verification records are disclosed rather than inferred. See our editorial policy and wallet safety guidance.

Score bands at a glance

Why some projects score lower (even if they're trending)

• Unclear tasks: "Do something" instructions, missing steps, broken flows, or unreliable eligibility.
• High risk approvals: Excessive token approvals, unknown contracts, or permission patterns that look unsafe.
• Low verification: No clear docs, no official links, or inconsistent communication across channels.
• Heavy friction: Strict KYC, geo-blocking, or expensive on-chain actions for uncertain value.
• Long uncertainty: No timeline, no incentive clarity, or repeated "soon" updates without progress.

What the score is not

• Not a price prediction, investment recommendation, or promise of rewards.
• Not a replacement for your own due diligence and wallet safety habits.
• Not influenced by paid placement. Sponsored listings are labeled and disclosed.

How often scores change

Scores can update when tasks change, snapshot windows are announced, major product milestones ship, or new risk information appears. We also adjust scores when activity becomes verifiable (or when a project goes quiet).

Transparency checklist

• Official links only (validated against project channels where possible).
• Warnings for risky approvals, suspicious steps, or impersonation patterns.
• Clear prerequisites and an effort estimate (time + cost when relevant).
• Fresh-wallet reminders for high-risk tasks.
• Clear disclosure if an article includes affiliate or referral links.

Questions or corrections?

If you spot missing context or a score that needs review, send it to us. We update guides when new evidence is available.