Yei Finance

Liquidity and market dynamics score 66 out of 100. Trading liquidity looks moderate, with volume-to-market-cap at 50 and a volume-to-market-cap ratio of 69.59%. Liquidity depth is supported by about $12,596,023 in 24h volume. Exchange listing data shows broad availability across 13 exchanges, including 6 with green signals, 4 with yellow signals, and 2 with red signals, which helps overall accessibility while still leaving some venue-level risk.

Team credibility score 50 out of 100. The asset has some maturity, with an age of 3.4 years and 1 audit firm on record. However, the team is anonymous, which lowers credibility. Overall, this bucket balances real-world longevity and limited third-party review activity against the reduced transparency that comes with an anonymous team.

Social and behavioral signals score 49 out of 100. Social audience data shows Twitter and Telegram accounts (linked) with an audience level of 25, while no social analytics snapshot was available at the time of review. On behavioral risk signals, there are 0 allegations and 1 bad press, alongside 1 incident and no regulatory flags. Research also raised 2 additional concerns, which keeps this bucket below the midpoint.

Contract mechanics score 98 out of 100. The contract appears strongly engineered from a safety perspective: contract verification is present (100), honeypot risk is not detected (100), and the code is open source (100). Minting is disabled (100), owner privileges checks score well (100), balances are locked (100), and no hidden functions were flagged (100). Trading taxes are 0% buy/sell, a supply cap is defined at 1,000,000,000, and the circulating ratio flag reflects only 13% circulating—consistent with the earlier “under 50% circulating” note.

Inherent crypto risk (Yei Finance). Even with strong contract mechanics, this remains a smart-contract token, so risks can include exploits, governance or operational issues, and liquidity or market swings—especially given only 13% of supply is circulating. The anonymous team and the presence of hack/exploit history in the safety scoring input also warrant caution, since code-level safety and historical events don’t always fully eliminate real-world execution risk.