Crypto tokens are often grouped into lists like “best,” “top,” or “most promising.” On the surface, these lists can look similar, but the tokens inside them can behave very differently once people actually start using or trading them.
Our approach is simple. We don’t try to predict prices or tell readers which token will perform best. Instead, we try to explain what a token is, why it exists, and what risks come with it.
Different tokens are built for different purposes. Some are meant to power networks, some exist mainly for speculation, and others are tied to specific platforms or narratives. Because of that, we don’t treat all tokens the same or apply one rigid scoring formula across every list.
The goal of our token lists is to help readers understand trade-offs. What looks attractive at first glance may come with hidden risks later. This methodology explains how we look at crypto tokens when building and ranking our lists.
COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
EXPERT INSIGHTS
This methodology is used for coin and token-based listicles published on CoinGape.
It applies to lists such as:
Established cryptocurrencies with long trading histories may also be reviewed differently, depending on context, since early-stage risk factors don’t always apply the same way.
This methodology is used for coin and token-based listicles published on CoinGape.
It applies to lists such as:
Established cryptocurrencies with long trading histories may also be reviewed differently, depending on context, since early-stage risk factors don’t always apply the same way.
We don’t try to list every token that launches or trends.
Most crypto tokens never reach a stage where there’s enough information to judge them properly. When that’s the case, we usually leave them out.
A token is considered only when there’s something concrete to look at. That might be a live product, an active presale, an announced exchange listing, or verifiable on-chain activity. There also needs to be basic documentation explaining what the token does and how it’s supposed to work.
In practice, this means we usually focus on tokens that:
Some tokens don’t make it into our lists, and that’s intentional. Projects with missing documentation, unclear control, or claims that can’t be verified are hard to assess and often carry higher risk. Including them would add noise rather than help readers.
Our lists are meant to be practical. Leaving certain tokens out is part of keeping them that way.
We don’t try to list every token that launches or trends.
Most crypto tokens never reach a stage where there’s enough information to judge them properly. When that’s the case, we usually leave them out.
A token is considered only when there’s something concrete to look at. That might be a live product, an active presale, an announced exchange listing, or verifiable on-chain activity. There also needs to be basic documentation explaining what the token does and how it’s supposed to work.
In practice, this means we usually focus on tokens that:
Some tokens don’t make it into our lists, and that’s intentional. Projects with missing documentation, unclear control, or claims that can’t be verified are hard to assess and often carry higher risk. Including them would add noise rather than help readers.
Our lists are meant to be practical. Leaving certain tokens out is part of keeping them that way.
Most of the information we use for token lists is publicly available, but it doesn’t all come from one place.
We usually start with the project’s own material. That includes the official website, whitepaper or documentation, token details, and any disclosures around supply, distribution, or vesting. This helps us understand what the project is claiming to build and how the token fits into it.
From there, we look for ways to verify those claims. That might involve checking on-chain data, looking at contract addresses, reviewing launchpad details, or confirming listings and announcements from exchanges. When a token is already trading, liquidity, volume, and market access also matter.
Community channels can provide context as well. Telegram, Discord, X, and forums often show how active a project really is and how the team communicates when questions or issues come up. That said, community sentiment is treated carefully and never taken at face value.
If key details can’t be verified through primary or reliable secondary sources, we treat that as a risk signal or choose not to include the token at all.
Most of the information we use for token lists is publicly available, but it doesn’t all come from one place.
We usually start with the project’s own material. That includes the official website, whitepaper or documentation, token details, and any disclosures around supply, distribution, or vesting. This helps us understand what the project is claiming to build and how the token fits into it.
From there, we look for ways to verify those claims. That might involve checking on-chain data, looking at contract addresses, reviewing launchpad details, or confirming listings and announcements from exchanges. When a token is already trading, liquidity, volume, and market access also matter.
Community channels can provide context as well. Telegram, Discord, X, and forums often show how active a project really is and how the team communicates when questions or issues come up. That said, community sentiment is treated carefully and never taken at face value.
If key details can’t be verified through primary or reliable secondary sources, we treat that as a risk signal or choose not to include the token at all.
Even though token lists can look very different, the same basic questions tend to matter once someone is considering a coin seriously.
Purpose and use case
We start by asking a simple question: why does this token exist? Tokens that serve a clear role within a product, network, or ecosystem are easier to assess than those built mainly around hype or short-term narratives.
Token design and supply mechanics
Token structure matters more than price. We look at total supply, how tokens are allocated, and whether there are large unlocks or inflation mechanisms that could affect the token later. Aggressive vesting or unclear distribution often increases risk.
Liquidity and market access
A token that can’t be traded easily is hard to use or exit. We look at where the token is available, how deep liquidity appears to be, and whether access is limited to small or illiquid venues.
Transparency and team visibility
We pay attention to how open the project is. Doxxed teams, clear communication, and regular updates make it easier to evaluate risk. Anonymous teams aren’t automatically excluded, but they are assessed more conservatively.
Security and technical risk
For tokens that rely on smart contracts, we look for audits, contract disclosures, and known issues. Audits reduce risk, but they don’t remove it. Missing audits or vague technical details are treated as warning signs.
Adoption and usage signals
When available, we look at on-chain activity, user numbers, integrations, or ecosystem usage. These signals help show whether a token is being used for something real or just traded speculatively.
Risk and limitations
Every token has trade-offs. Some are highly experimental, others are tightly controlled, and many depend on conditions outside their control. We try to surface those risks clearly instead of burying them under positives.
These factors form the base of how we think about tokens. Depending on the type of list, some areas matter more than others, which is explained in the sections that follow.
Even though token lists can look very different, the same basic questions tend to matter once someone is considering a coin seriously.
Purpose and use case
We start by asking a simple question: why does this token exist? Tokens that serve a clear role within a product, network, or ecosystem are easier to assess than those built mainly around hype or short-term narratives.
Token design and supply mechanics
Token structure matters more than price. We look at total supply, how tokens are allocated, and whether there are large unlocks or inflation mechanisms that could affect the token later. Aggressive vesting or unclear distribution often increases risk.
Liquidity and market access
A token that can’t be traded easily is hard to use or exit. We look at where the token is available, how deep liquidity appears to be, and whether access is limited to small or illiquid venues.
Transparency and team visibility
We pay attention to how open the project is. Doxxed teams, clear communication, and regular updates make it easier to evaluate risk. Anonymous teams aren’t automatically excluded, but they are assessed more conservatively.
Security and technical risk
For tokens that rely on smart contracts, we look for audits, contract disclosures, and known issues. Audits reduce risk, but they don’t remove it. Missing audits or vague technical details are treated as warning signs.
Adoption and usage signals
When available, we look at on-chain activity, user numbers, integrations, or ecosystem usage. These signals help show whether a token is being used for something real or just traded speculatively.
Risk and limitations
Every token has trade-offs. Some are highly experimental, others are tightly controlled, and many depend on conditions outside their control. We try to surface those risks clearly instead of burying them under positives.
These factors form the base of how we think about tokens. Depending on the type of list, some areas matter more than others, which is explained in the sections that follow.
Not all tokens are built for the same reason, so we don’t judge them the same way. A meme coin, a DeFi token, and a Layer 2 project can’t be compared on identical terms. What matters most depends on what the token is trying to do.
Below is how our focus shifts across common token categories.
Meme coins
Meme coins are mostly driven by attention, timing, and liquidity. For these lists, we care less about long technical roadmaps and more about whether the token is actually tradable and transparent. Liquidity depth, token distribution, contract visibility, and how concentrated ownership looks tend to matter most. Community activity is reviewed, but hype alone doesn’t score points.
DeFi, yield, and staking tokens
For DeFi-related tokens, risk moves to the front. We place more weight on protocol design, incentives, and how returns are generated. Tokens tied to lending, farming, or staking are reviewed with an eye on sustainability. Extremely high yields, unclear reward sources, or heavy reliance on short-term incentives are treated cautiously.
Layer 1, Layer 2, and infrastructure tokens
Infrastructure tokens are assessed based on usage rather than promises. We look at whether the network is actually being used, how active development appears to be, and whether there’s real demand for block space or services. Token value tied only to future adoption, without current usage signals, carries higher uncertainty.
AI, DePIN, DeSci, and RWA tokens
For narrative-driven categories, we focus on execution risk. Many projects claim exposure to large trends, but not all have real products behind them. We look for evidence of integration, data sources, partnerships, or working components rather than broad claims. Tokens that rely heavily on future assumptions are treated more conservatively.
Chain-specific tokens
Lists focused on a single chain, such as Solana or Base, are evaluated in context. We consider how well the token fits into that ecosystem, whether it benefits from native demand, and how dependent it is on the chain’s growth or stability. Ecosystem concentration can be a strength or a risk, depending on conditions.
Listings and launch-based lists
For lists built around exchange listings or launchpads, timing and confirmation matter most. We focus on whether listings are officially announced, how accessible trading is likely to be, and what liquidity conditions may look like early on. These lists carry higher short-term risk, which is reflected in how they’re presented.
Across all categories, the same core idea applies. We adjust what we focus on, but we don’t lower the bar for transparency or risk disclosure.
Not all tokens are built for the same reason, so we don’t judge them the same way. A meme coin, a DeFi token, and a Layer 2 project can’t be compared on identical terms. What matters most depends on what the token is trying to do.
Below is how our focus shifts across common token categories.
Meme coins
Meme coins are mostly driven by attention, timing, and liquidity. For these lists, we care less about long technical roadmaps and more about whether the token is actually tradable and transparent. Liquidity depth, token distribution, contract visibility, and how concentrated ownership looks tend to matter most. Community activity is reviewed, but hype alone doesn’t score points.
DeFi, yield, and staking tokens
For DeFi-related tokens, risk moves to the front. We place more weight on protocol design, incentives, and how returns are generated. Tokens tied to lending, farming, or staking are reviewed with an eye on sustainability. Extremely high yields, unclear reward sources, or heavy reliance on short-term incentives are treated cautiously.
Layer 1, Layer 2, and infrastructure tokens
Infrastructure tokens are assessed based on usage rather than promises. We look at whether the network is actually being used, how active development appears to be, and whether there’s real demand for block space or services. Token value tied only to future adoption, without current usage signals, carries higher uncertainty.
AI, DePIN, DeSci, and RWA tokens
For narrative-driven categories, we focus on execution risk. Many projects claim exposure to large trends, but not all have real products behind them. We look for evidence of integration, data sources, partnerships, or working components rather than broad claims. Tokens that rely heavily on future assumptions are treated more conservatively.
Chain-specific tokens
Lists focused on a single chain, such as Solana or Base, are evaluated in context. We consider how well the token fits into that ecosystem, whether it benefits from native demand, and how dependent it is on the chain’s growth or stability. Ecosystem concentration can be a strength or a risk, depending on conditions.
Listings and launch-based lists
For lists built around exchange listings or launchpads, timing and confirmation matter most. We focus on whether listings are officially announced, how accessible trading is likely to be, and what liquidity conditions may look like early on. These lists carry higher short-term risk, which is reflected in how they’re presented.
Across all categories, the same core idea applies. We adjust what we focus on, but we don’t lower the bar for transparency or risk disclosure.
On individual token or coin review pages, we use a 5-star rating to give a quick snapshot of how a project looks overall.
The star rating is not about future price, returns, or whether a token will “moon.” It’s a summary of how the token stacks up across the areas covered in this methodology at the time of review.
That includes things like:
Each token is looked at using the same broad set of considerations. Strong points, such as a clear use case or healthy liquidity, are weighed against drawbacks like heavy vesting, unclear control, or reliance on short-term hype. No single feature is enough on its own to decide the final score.
The rating is meant to help compare tokens within similar lists, not to rank the entire market.
On individual token or coin review pages, we use a 5-star rating to give a quick snapshot of how a project looks overall.
The star rating is not about future price, returns, or whether a token will “moon.” It’s a summary of how the token stacks up across the areas covered in this methodology at the time of review.
That includes things like:
Each token is looked at using the same broad set of considerations. Strong points, such as a clear use case or healthy liquidity, are weighed against drawbacks like heavy vesting, unclear control, or reliance on short-term hype. No single feature is enough on its own to decide the final score.
The rating is meant to help compare tokens within similar lists, not to rank the entire market.
Star ratings are comparative, not predictive.
A higher rating means a token appears stronger relative to other tokens we’ve reviewed in the same context. It does not mean the token is safe, low-risk, or suitable for every reader.
Different lists serve different purposes. A 4-star token in a high-risk category may still be far riskier than a 3.5-star token in a more established one. Market conditions, timing, and individual use cases all play a big role in how a token performs.
For that reason, star ratings should be read alongside the written analysis. The review explains why a token received a particular score and what trade-offs are involved.
Star ratings are comparative, not predictive.
A higher rating means a token appears stronger relative to other tokens we’ve reviewed in the same context. It does not mean the token is safe, low-risk, or suitable for every reader.
Different lists serve different purposes. A 4-star token in a high-risk category may still be far riskier than a 3.5-star token in a more established one. Market conditions, timing, and individual use cases all play a big role in how a token performs.
For that reason, star ratings should be read alongside the written analysis. The review explains why a token received a particular score and what trade-offs are involved.
Our token lists and reviews are created independently.
In some cases, CoinGape may have commercial or affiliate relationships related to products, platforms, or services mentioned on the site. These relationships do not determine how tokens are selected, described, or rated.
We follow the same review approach whether or not a project has any commercial connection with us. Sponsored content, if any, is clearly labeled so readers can distinguish it from editorial coverage.
Our token lists and reviews are created independently.
In some cases, CoinGape may have commercial or affiliate relationships related to products, platforms, or services mentioned on the site. These relationships do not determine how tokens are selected, described, or rated.
We follow the same review approach whether or not a project has any commercial connection with us. Sponsored content, if any, is clearly labeled so readers can distinguish it from editorial coverage.
Crypto tokens are volatile and often experimental. Many projects never reach their goals, change direction after launch, or lose relevance over time.
Our lists are designed to help readers understand what a token is, how it works, and where the risks lie. They are not recommendations to buy, hold, or invest.
Readers should always verify information independently, understand local regulations, and consider their own risk tolerance before taking part in any token sale or trading activity.
Crypto tokens are volatile and often experimental. Many projects never reach their goals, change direction after launch, or lose relevance over time.
Our lists are designed to help readers understand what a token is, how it works, and where the risks lie. They are not recommendations to buy, hold, or invest.
Readers should always verify information independently, understand local regulations, and consider their own risk tolerance before taking part in any token sale or trading activity.
Since 2016, CoinGape has been dedicated to providing crypto enthusiasts and investors with expert insights and actionable information.
Our team of industry experts, meticulous researchers, and an engaged community work together to offer the most thorough and valuable content in the crypto sector.
Monthly Readers
Newsletter Subscribers
Articles Published
Hours of Research
Expert Contributors
5M+ Monthly Page Views
50k+ Articles
Claim Bonus