Coingape reviews crypto presales and early-stage tokens to help readers understand what they are actually buying into, not just what is being promised.
Presales often look attractive on the surface. Early pricing, bonus allocations, and ambitious roadmaps are common. In reality, most risks show up much later, after the token launches, liquidity opens, or vesting schedules kick in. Many projects never reach that stage at all.
This methodology explains how we evaluate crypto presales and new tokens across our comparison guides and individual coverage.
Our reviews follow CoinGape’s editorial standards for accuracy, independence, and transparency. You can read more in our Editorial Policy.
COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
EXPERT INSIGHTS
This review approach is used for:
It does not apply to established cryptocurrencies with long trading histories. Those are covered under different evaluation frameworks.
We do not try to cover every presale that appears in the market.
A project is considered only if it is actively raising funds or preparing for a public token launch at the time of review. There must also be enough public information available for users to understand how the project works and what the risks are.
In general, we look for projects that:
Projects with missing documentation, unclear ownership, or unrealistic claims are usually excluded.
Crypto presales differ by theme and market, but once users commit funds, the same few areas tend to matter most.
We start with the basics. Does the project solve a real problem, or does the token exist mainly to raise funds? Projects with a clear use case beyond speculation tend to score better over time.
We start with the basics. Does the project solve a real problem, or does the token exist mainly to raise funds? Projects with a clear use case beyond speculation tend to score better over time.
We look at who is behind the project. Doxed teams, prior experience, and public accountability reduce risk. Anonymous teams are not automatically excluded, but they are evaluated more conservatively.
We look at who is behind the project. Doxed teams, prior experience, and public accountability reduce risk. Anonymous teams are not automatically excluded, but they are evaluated more conservatively.
We go through the whitepaper to see what the project is really building and where the token fits in. A useful whitepaper explains the product in simple terms, not just big ideas or buzzwords.
When it comes to the roadmap, we focus on whether it feels practical. Clear steps and timelines matter more than ambitious promises. Broad phases with no detail usually raise questions.
We go through the whitepaper to see what the project is really building and where the token fits in. A useful whitepaper explains the product in simple terms, not just big ideas or buzzwords.
When it comes to the roadmap, we focus on whether it feels practical. Clear steps and timelines matter more than ambitious promises. Broad phases with no detail usually raise questions.
Token design matters more than how cheap the presale price looks. We check the total supply, how tokens are split, and when team or early backer tokens are set to unlock.
Large unlocks, high inflation, or unclear distribution often lead to selling pressure later, even if the presale itself looks appealing.
Token design matters more than how cheap the presale price looks. We check the total supply, how tokens are split, and when team or early backer tokens are set to unlock.
Large unlocks, high inflation, or unclear distribution often lead to selling pressure later, even if the presale itself looks appealing.
If the project uses smart contracts, we check whether they’ve been audited and what those audits actually reviewed.
An audit doesn’t mean a project is safe, but having none at all increases risk. Projects with missing audits or vague contract details are handled more carefully.
If the project uses smart contracts, we check whether they’ve been audited and what those audits actually reviewed.
An audit doesn’t mean a project is safe, but having none at all increases risk. Projects with missing audits or vague contract details are handled more carefully.
Community activity gives useful signals when viewed carefully. We look for real discussion and participation, not just large follower numbers.
Overhyped communities with little substance or obvious bot activity are taken as a warning sign rather than a positive.
Community activity gives useful signals when viewed carefully. We look for real discussion and participation, not just large follower numbers.
Overhyped communities with little substance or obvious bot activity are taken as a warning sign rather than a positive.
We assess whether the problem the project claims to solve actually exists and whether there is demand for it.
Being early is less important than being different. Projects entering crowded markets without a clear edge tend to carry higher execution risk.
We assess whether the problem the project claims to solve actually exists and whether there is demand for it.
Being early is less important than being different. Projects entering crowded markets without a clear edge tend to carry higher execution risk.
We review how much the project is trying to raise and why. Reasonable funding targets usually signal clearer planning.
Very high hard caps at an early stage can increase pressure on the token after launch and often raise more questions than confidence.
We review how much the project is trying to raise and why. Reasonable funding targets usually signal clearer planning.
Very high hard caps at an early stage can increase pressure on the token after launch and often raise more questions than confidence.
Presales hosted on established launchpads tend to offer more structure and transparency. Direct sales are evaluated more carefully, especially when safeguards are limited.
Presales hosted on established launchpads tend to offer more structure and transparency. Direct sales are evaluated more carefully, especially when safeguards are limited.
On presale and token review pages, we use a 5-star rating to give a quick summary of how a project looks overall.
The rating is not about price targets or how much money a token might make. It’s based on what we can see today. Things like how clear the project is, how the token is structured, who’s behind it, whether basic security checks exist, and how risky the setup looks at this stage.
Every project has positives and negatives. A clear use case or good documentation can help, but issues like heavy vesting, unclear control, or missing details pull the score down. No single point decides the rating on its own.
These stars are meant for comparison only. A higher rating just means the project looks stronger than other presales we’ve reviewed. It does not mean the project is safe or guaranteed to work out.
Written reviews provide more context than star ratings alone and should always be read before making decisions.
Crypto presales are risky by nature. Many projects never deliver what they promise, get delayed, or lose interest after launch.
Our reviews are meant to point out what looks good and what could go wrong. They are not telling you to invest. Always double-check details yourself and think about how much risk you’re comfortable taking before joining any presale.
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