Helder
HLDR
Evaluation Score
Overall rating on a scale of 0-10
Dimension Breakdown
AI Analysis
Comprehensive evaluation of the token
Helder (HLDR) suffers from severe data limitations across multiple fundamental categories. Active Development, Community Support, Team and Governance, and Security and Audit History all returned insufficient data (-1.0) due to an absence of verifiable project channels, repositories, identity confirmations, or audit documentation in available sources. Among the evaluable areas, Tokenomics scored 2.0/10 due to high opacity surrounding token allocation, supply vesting schedules, and reliance on an unsustainable fixed APY yield model. Market and Use Case also scored 2.0/10, reflecting a low-liquidity micro-cap token on BNB Chain with a market cap around $716K–$767K, 24-hour trading volume under $16K, and no documented competitive utility or product roadmap. The weighted average of the evaluable sections yields an overall score of 2.0/10.
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 Helder (HLDR)
Helder (HLDR) is a micro-cap cryptocurrency token deployed on the Binance Smart Chain (BNB Chain). Based on aggregator listings, the project advertises a model structured around a fixed annual percentage yield (APY) reward system, automated reward distribution, and a deflationary supply mechanism. With a circulating supply of approximately 3.48 million tokens, the asset's demand model primarily centers on yield generation rather than defined technical utility or documented decentralized applications.
The project exhibits significant informational opacity regarding its core infrastructure, team, and operations. Public documentation lacks verifiable details concerning the project's development repositories, official community channels, leadership, and governance structure. Furthermore, there is no public roadmap or detailed product differentiation available to substantiate its ongoing development status or underlying use case.
From a risk and security perspective, Helder presents critical transparency concerns. Public sources do not provide token allocation breakdowns, vesting schedules, or verified contract ownership controls. In addition, no third-party smart contract audits from established security firms have been identified, and trading activity is characterized by very low daily volume and limited liquidity.