yearn.finance

Liquidity and market dynamics score 85 out of 100. The asset shows strong exchange presence with listings across 77 exchanges, and liquidity depth supported by $5,990,667 in 24h volume. Volume-to-market-cap is high (90), with the provided ratio at 6.08%, suggesting relatively healthy market trading activity for this token.

Team credibility score 73 out of 100. The project is relatively mature at 4.9 years old, and there are 4 audit firms on record (audits score 100). Public development signal is mixed: the latest GitHub activity shows 0 commits in the last 4 weeks and 52 stars (github activity score 22). Agent could not determine whether team members are doxxed, but the deployer address is recorded (70).

Social and behavioral signals score 56 out of 100. Social audience data shows Twitter (linked, followers not provided), Telegram with 5,623, and Reddit (linked, follower count not provided), while sentiment is evenly split (50% up / 50% down). Security-related behavioral flags indicate scam allegations were found, with 1 allegation, 0 bad press, 0 regulatory flags, and 1 incidents, which keeps this bucket in the middle range.

Contract mechanics score 78 out of 100. The contract is verified (100), open source (100), and shows no honeypot behavior (100). Transfers/taxes are 0% for buys and sells (100), and a supply hard cap is defined (100) with 97% of total supply circulating (100). Key risks remain: the token is mintable (50), the owner can change balances (balance manipulation 20), there are hidden/pausable/blacklist-type functions (75), and the system is proxy upgradable (60), alongside a hidden owner flag.

Holder distribution score 79 out of 100. Concentration is relatively controlled: top 10 wallets hold 41.6% (88), and top 50 wallets hold 76.2% (68). The largest non-filtered holder holds 10.4% (69), and the holder base is large with 51,946 total holders (82). A risk flag notes a single wallet over 10%, but overall distribution still scores well.

Inherent crypto risk for yearn.finance: even with solid liquidity and contract verification, smart-contract platforms carry baseline risks from upgradeability, minting authority, and owner-controlled privileges. Here, the contract is upgradable and mintable, and owner balance-change capability is flagged, so stakeholders should treat governance and administrative risk as central to the asset’s safety profile despite a BBB overall rating.