Nosana

Liquidity and market dynamics score 68 out of 100. Trading activity looks moderate, with volume to market cap at 1.16% and 24h volume of about $297,746 versus liquidity depth scored at 37. Exchange listing data suggests broad availability across 14 exchanges, with 7 green, 6 yellow, and 1 red. This combination indicates some market access, though liquidity depth is not uniformly strong.

Team credibility score 86 out of 100. The project has a track record, with the asset age at 5.3 years (91). Team identity appears transparent, with the team publicly identified at 100. Security review signals are mixed, with 1 audit firm on record and an audits score of 60, while the whitepaper quality is rated at 100, indicating strong documentation quality relative to the scoring rubric.

Social and behavioral signals score 61 out of 100. Public social activity exists, with limited audience metrics (Twitter linked and 12 for TW, and 18 for TG). Sentiment is neutral at 50, split evenly between up and down. Agent risk signals are scored at 100 with 0 allegations, 0 bad press, 0 regulatory flags, and 0 incidents. However, an influencer analytics snapshot was unavailable, limiting interpretability.

Contract mechanics score 5 out of 100. Critical technical checks are largely missing, including no contract security scan, no contract verification data, and no ownership data from public records. Block explorer data is also unavailable. Positively, the supply cap is defined, with a hard cap of 100,000,000 (score 5), and circulating supply is reported as 100% of total supply (score 5), but overall smart-contract safety assessment remains low due to absent verification and security scan inputs.

Holder distribution has no data. Without holder concentration or distribution metrics, there is no scoring basis to assess risks tied to large-holder dominance or whale control.

Inherent crypto risk: for a smart-contract token like Nosana, even when team and market signals are relatively solid, the practical risk largely depends on technical transparency. Here, contract security and verification information is not available, which increases uncertainty around code safety and how reliably public on-chain facts can be validated.