Goldn
GOLDN
Evaluation Score
Overall rating on a scale of 0-10
Dimension Breakdown
AI Analysis
Comprehensive evaluation of the token
The evaluation of GOLDN is heavily constrained by significant data gaps across multiple categories. Four of the six sections—Community Support, Tokenomics, Market and Use Case, and Team and Governance—lacked sufficient project-specific data to score, resulting in -1.0 ratings and requiring weight redistribution to the remaining sections. Active Development scored 1.0/10 due to a complete lack of verifiable repositories, commits, releases, or documentation for the Base deployment. Security and Audit History scored 3.5/10, reflecting substantial identity ambiguity, an unverified audit status, a weak CertiK Skynet rating (54.00 / CCC), and unconfirmed circulating supply. No qualifying red-flag events (such as confirmed exploits or legal enforcement actions) were affirmatively established. Based on the proportional redistribution between the two evaluable sections (Active Development at 57.14% and Security at 42.86%), the weighted average score is 2.1/10.
Development Activity
Code updates and developer engagement
Community Support
Social media presence and community engagement
Tokenomics
Supply, distribution, and utility
Market & Use Case
Value proposition and competitive landscape
Team & Governance
Team background and project governance
Security & Audits
Security history and audit status
About Goldn (GOLDN)
GOLDN (Goldn) is a cryptocurrency token associated with a contract deployment on the Base network. Publicly verifiable documentation, official project resources, and dedicated communication channels for the token are largely absent, resulting in substantial information gaps regarding its intended utility, core architecture, and operational model.
Evaluation of the project's technical activity shows a lack of active software development, with no public repositories, changelogs, roadmaps, or version releases available for the Base deployment. Additionally, details surrounding its underlying tokenomics—including supply distribution, vesting terms, and governance framework—remain unverified due to the absence of public disclosures and active community governance records.
Security and market evaluations highlight several structural risks. There is no confirmation of a completed third-party smart contract audit. Metrics from CertiK Skynet for matching ticker profiles reflect a weak score of 54.00 (CCC rating), characterized by unconfirmed circulating supply figures and identity ambiguity between network deployments. While there are no confirmed records of smart contract exploits, regulatory enforcement actions, or security breaches, the severe lack of technical transparency and verified developer presence presents notable operational risk.