Back to home

    Gunda

    GUNDA

    Evaluation Score

    Overall rating on a scale of 0-10

    RiskReturn
    02.410
    Risk Level:
    Very High
    Recommendation:Avoid
    Evaluated:August 28, 2026 (v14)

    Dimension Breakdown

    Development ActivityN/A
    Community Health1.0
    Tokenomics3.5
    Market & Use CaseN/A
    Team & GovernanceN/A
    Security & AuditsN/A

    AI Analysis

    Comprehensive evaluation of the token

    GUNDA suffers from substantial data gaps across four of the six evaluation categories: Active Development, Market and Use Case, Team and Governance, and Security and Audit History all scored -1.0 due to an inability to locate project-specific documentation, official channels, or audit records for contract 0x2387b01ef6221a0c0f2d18d51943aa632e2d0201 on Base. Among the evaluable metrics, Tokenomics scored 3.5/10 due to a fixed 1 billion supply with no vesting overhang, though it lacks any documented utility or demand drivers. Community Support scored 1/10 due to extreme holder centralization (top 5 holders controlling 99.25% of supply) and an absence of organic community engagement. The redistributed weighted average across evaluable sections yields a score of 2.4.

    Development Activity

    Code updates and developer engagement

    Insufficient Data

    Community Support

    Social media presence and community engagement

    RiskReturn
    01.010

    Tokenomics

    Supply, distribution, and utility

    RiskReturn
    03.510

    Market & Use Case

    Value proposition and competitive landscape

    Insufficient Data

    Team & Governance

    Team background and project governance

    Insufficient Data

    Security & Audits

    Security history and audit status

    Insufficient Data

    About Gunda (GUNDA)

    GUNDA (Gunda) is an ERC-20 token issued on the Base blockchain under the contract address 0x2387b01ef6221a0c0f2d18d51943aa632e2d0201. The token features a fixed total and circulating supply of 1 billion units, operating without future unlock schedules or vesting overhangs.

    There is no publicly available project documentation, whitepaper, or official website outlining a specific use case, utility, or economic model for the token. Similarly, no verifiable information exists regarding the development team, formal roadmap, governance frameworks, or active technical maintenance.

    Analysis of the token identifies notable structural and centralization risks. Out of 532 total holding addresses, the top five holders control approximately 99.25% of the token supply. Additionally, there is an absence of verified third-party security audits, public incident records, and measurable organic community engagement.

    Similar Rated Tokens