Injective

Track record score 71 out of 100. The project has been live for 5.6 years, with 0 regulatory actions recorded. Incident history is relatively contained at 1 historical incident, though research flagged 2 additional concern(s). Overall, public records suggest more stability than many newer assets, but the presence of past issues and research-raised concerns keeps this from being a top-tier safety result.

Developer health score 16 out of 100. Public code activity shows 2 GitHub stars and 27 forks, with 0 commits in the last 4 weeks and 14 PR contributors, despite 42 total contributors listed. The primary issue is the no recent commits flag, indicating current development momentum is difficult to confirm from the available timeframe, which is a meaningful negative for operational confidence.

Network security score 62 out of 100. Chain age is 5.6 years and circulating supply is fully circulating at 100%, with 1 historical incidents on record and a moderate economic security level (35) against a market cap of $431,362,633. However, no hard supply cap is defined (potential inflation), reflected by the no supply cap flag and a 50 score in that sub-area, which can affect long-term holder risk assumptions.

Social and behavioral score 65 out of 100. Social audience data shows TW (linked), TG 19,476, and RD (linked), while sentiment is net positive at 67% up and 33% down. Research signals show no allegations, but there is 1 bad press item and 1 incident referenced, with 0 regulatory concerns. The influencer snapshot isn’t available here, limiting some parts of social inference.

Adoption and liquidity score 55 out of 100. Trading activity is moderate, with 24h volume of $115,635,343, and exchange listing data is strong at 76 CEX listings (35 green-trust). The market cap tier field is reported as 0, so the classification basis for this bucket is incomplete, but available listing and volume metrics support reasonable accessibility and liquidity compared with smaller assets.

Inherent crypto risk (Injective, L1 protocol): Even with a mid-range safety score (53.7/100), L1 assets typically carry risks tied to protocol economics, governance and upgrade execution, and market volatility. Here, the absence of a hard supply cap and the lack of recent development commits are key risk factors, and while the project has a long operating history, past incidents and research-raised concerns warrant ongoing monitoring rather than assuming “set and forget” safety.