First Protocol

← Home

Print / Save as PDF

Purpose and scope

FLS evaluates launch structure and transparency using publicly inspectable evidence. It does not evaluate price performance, profitability or investment potential. It combines explicitly stated normative preferences with evidence. Its weights and thresholds are editorial choices, not empirically validated predictions.

Review launch terms and execution during the first 24 hours of public trading. Concentration and liquidity use the end-of-window snapshot. Record the first trading block, snapshot block and network; related criteria stay Unknown until the historical state is established. Vesting horizons of 30/90/180 days may provide context without additional hidden deductions. A disclosed plan may earn plan-disclosure points while its execution remains Unknown.

Except for the explicitly retrospective historical-record criterion F3, later improvements do not retroactively improve launch conditions. Keep a separate current-state profile.

Score calculation and Unknown

S = supported awarded points; U = maximum still-available points on unresolved criteria; L = established points not earned. Always S + U + L = 100. Report the range [S, S + U]. If U = 0, report a single score.

The lower endpoint is not a standalone final rating. Do not publish the midpoint as an estimate. Do not rescale assessed points to 100. The range reflects missing evidence, not a statistical confidence interval or guaranteed bounds after future corrections. State assessed weight as S + L, not as a percentage of safety or independent verification.

Example: 35 supported, 48 unresolved and 17 not earned means 35–83/100, with 52% of criterion weight assessed. An unresolved criterion can reflect unfinished research by FIRST, unavailable evidence, or undisclosed terms; distinguish those reasons.

1. Insider & Team Allocation — 25 points

A1 · Allocation disclosure · 5

One point for each numerically disclosed allocation: issuer/team, private investors (an explicit no-sale statement qualifies as disclosure), public distribution, earmarked reserves, and liquidity. This measures the disclosed plan, not its execution.

A2 · Address traceability · 5

2 points for an authentic token contract and an identifiable issuer. A further 3 require a complete allocation-address register, evidence connecting recipients to their designated categories, and reconciliation of initial transfers. Incomplete reconciliation is Unknown.

A3 · Direct issuer/team allocation · 15

Apply to the explicitly designated direct issuer/team share of genesis supply: 0% = 15; >0–10% = 12; >10–20% = 9; >20–35% = 5; >35% = 0. This measures issuer economic allocation, not personal misconduct. Do not automatically classify earmarked incentive funds as personal holdings; disclose their control and restrictions separately. Unclear direct-allocation classification is Unknown.

2. VC / Private Sale — 15 points

B1 · Disclosure of private terms · 3

3 points for an explicit statement of no private token sales, or disclosure of the allocation, price and vesting of private rounds. 1 point if only the existence of a sale is disclosed. 0 for an established material contradiction. Missing information is Unknown. A no-sale statement earns disclosure points only.

B2 · Reconciliation and pricing · 6

3 points for reconciliation of disclosed token deals and allocations against addresses and transactions in the review scope. Another 3 for no established discount in a comparable round, or corroborated absence of a private token round within the inspected register. A demonstrated discount earns 0 pricing-parity points even if disclosed. No comparable public round plus no corroborated absence of a private round is Unknown.

B3 · Early liquidity advantage · 6

6 points when verified rules prevent private-round or market-maker recipients from realizing their allocation before comparable public access. 0 when the opposite is established. Inspect the declared recipient set and scope; do not claim to disprove every possible hidden relationship. Team TGE availability is assessed in C, not penalized again here.

3. Unlocks & Vesting — 15 points

C1 · Disclosed team schedule · 4

One point each for team tranche size, TGE-unlocked fraction, release mechanism (linear or cliff), and duration. Unknown elements remain pending. All other privileged tranches must also be listed and investigated under C4.

C2 · Team tranche liquid at TGE · 4

0% = 4 points; >0–10% = 3; >10–20% = 2; >20–25% = 1; >25% = 0. Independently corroborated absence of a team tranche earns 4. Fractions refer to the team tranche, not total token supply.

C3 · Team vesting duration · 3

At least 24 months = 3; at least 12 but less than 24 = 2; at least 6 but less than 12 = 1; less than 6 = 0. Corroborated absence of a team allocation earns 3. This assesses the declared schedule; execution is assessed separately.

C4 · Execution of all privileged tranches · 4

One point each for a complete tranche/recipient register, matching enforceable restrictions, actual releases matching the schedule, and absence of unilateral cancellation or acceleration. Include privileged company and fund allocations, not just personally attributed team wallets.

4. Wallet Concentration — 15 points

D1 · Historical dataset · 5

One point each for a snapshot block, correct denominator, classification of technical holders, beneficiary disclosure for custodial/vesting holdings or explicit identification of incomplete attribution, and reproducible calculations. An incomplete dataset cannot support D2/D3.

D2 · Largest economic holder · 5

After normalization: ≤5% = 5 points; >5–10% = 4; >10–20% = 2; >20% = 0. A staking pool or exchange is not automatically one insider. Exclude demonstrably inaccessible tokens; look through custodians to beneficiaries. If normalization is not possible, mark Unknown.

D3 · Ten largest economic holders · 5

Combined share: ≤20% = 5 points; >20–35% = 4; >35–50% = 2; >50% = 0. Publish the denominator and classification table. This assesses observed economic control, distinct from the original allocation assessed in A.

5. Contract Permissions — 10 points

E1 · Token logic · 2

2 points for verifiable immutable base-token code. 1 for upgrades constrained by an established timelock of at least 48 hours. 0 for established unconstrained base-token upgradeability. Disclose external mechanisms that can change effective permissions and assess them in E3/E4.

E2 · Transfer and balance intervention · 2

One point for absence of pause/blacklist paths and one for absence of administrative seizure or arbitrary modification of other holders’ balances in the inspected verified code. Unverified dependencies remain Unknown.

E3 · Issuance constraint · 3

3 points if further issuance is impossible or an immutable aggregate cap cannot be bypassed by upgrades. 1 if only an unavoidable hard issuance-rate limit exists. 0 if privileged minting has neither constraint. Emissions are not, by themselves, misconduct.

E4 · Launch-time administrative safeguards · 3

One point each for tracing the complete control chain, critical powers protected by a multisig requiring at least two and a majority of its signers, and changes protected by a timelock of at least 48 hours without a bypass. Demonstrably absent powers satisfy corresponding safeguards. Signer count does not prove signer independence. Current settings do not establish launch settings.

6. Launch Transparency — 10 points

F1 · Source provenance · 2

One point each for an identifiable official publisher and an explicit date on the principal announcement. A page date does not establish unchanged historical content.

F2 · Access to verification · 2

One point each for publicly accessible materials and an unambiguous link to the target contract. This measures access to sources, not allocation completeness already assessed in A1.

F3 · Historical explanations · 2

One point for an accessible original dated launch description and one for separately dated public explanations or corrections of material subsequent developments. This is explicitly retrospective: it measures the available historical record at review time, not improved original launch conditions. If no changes occurred, the second point requires verifiable version history, not an assumption.

F4 · Consistent access rules · 1

1 point for consistent published eligibility rules; 0 for an established unresolved material internal contradiction. Missing evidence is Unknown.

F5 · Conditions before the decision · 3

One point each for proof that allocation terms, administrative powers and public-participation rules were available before the relevant access opened. Require archived evidence or a timestamp, not merely the article’s calendar date.

7. Liquidity Fairness — 10 points

G1 · Initial liquidity disclosure · 2

One point each for naming the initial venue/pool and stating the token-supply allocation to liquidity. Disclosure does not establish funded reserves, lock status or sufficient depth.

G2 · Initial liquidity withdrawal rights · 4

A proven withdrawal restriction of at least 180 days, or irreversibility = 4 points; at least 90 days = 3; at least 30 days = 2; only an established timelock of at least 48 hours = 1; established immediate unilateral withdrawal = 0. Verify coverage of the full stated principal position, LP/NFT ownership and bypasses. Unknown rights remain pending. A lock earns no depth points.

G3 · Executable depth · 4

At the T+24-hour snapshot, model a sale of 0.1% of then-circulating supply through principal public pools. Publish reserves, route and price impact excluding fees: ≤2% = 4 points; >2–5% = 3; >5–10% = 1; >10% or demonstrably impossible sale = 0. Unknown supply, reserves or execution mechanics is Unknown. This is a normative structural test, not a promised execution price.

Evidence and claim status

Confirmed: evidence supports the precisely scoped claim. Disputed: a substantive evidence-backed challenge is unresolved. Unknown: sufficient evidence is missing or inspection is incomplete. Refuted: evidence contradicts the precisely scoped claim; it is not an unresolved dispute. Corrections are history events, not permanent negative verdicts.

Confirmed does not mean favorable. A confirmed mint power may reduce a permission score. Official statements can establish what was disclosed without proving execution or completeness. Match evidence to the claim: contract/state evidence for powers, historical transactions for actions, authenticated dated disclosures for announced conditions, and attributed supporting research for leads. Wallet association alone does not establish common ownership. A signature or hash authenticates or fingerprints an object; it does not establish the truth of its contents.

Store claim scope, evidence links, source dates, observation block or explicit absence of a pinned block, verifier/method, reasoning and limitations. Avoid double deductions for the same property: allocation size, timing, actual concentration and code control are distinct properties requiring distinct justifications.

Publication and review history

A review can be issued as a completed dated research snapshot while evidence remains incomplete. Use Review snapshot · Evidence incomplete when U > 0; approval of this methodology never converts Unknown into Confirmed. Do not label the entire project verified. A 100/100 score means the criteria of this version are met within the stated scope, not exhaustive knowledge or guaranteed safety.

Every review must include its ID, project, network and contract; methodology version; launch period and snapshot; review date; S/U/L and criterion breakdown; evidence and limits; author/verifier; and interests such as holdings, compensation or project relationships. Unknown author disclosures must remain explicitly unfilled, never described as no conflicts.

Every change receives an event date, the affected claim/criterion, previous and new values, evidence, reviewer and reason. Retain previous reviews. Approval, publication, factual correction and methodology change are different events. Ordinary files and timestamps alone must not be called immutable or independently anchored history.

Right to Reply

Projects, researchers and community members may submit a specific challenged claim, public evidence and an explanation through the FIRST research request form. The X handle and specific question are optional in the general intake form; a useful correction submission should identify the disputed statement. Intake is not automatic acceptance or guaranteed review timing. FIRST checks the submitted evidence, records its decision and explains any score change. Neither payment, popularity nor a project’s response alone establishes confirmation. A lack of response is not proof of wrongdoing.

Descriptive bands

These are descriptive framework bands, not investment ratings. Do not select one band when an unresolved range crosses band boundaries. Never classify a project using only the lower endpoint.

Versioning and limitations

v0.2 retains the seven category weights from v0.1 and introduces explicit subcriteria, numerical thresholds, visible unresolved points, historical/current-state separation and an auditable correction policy. The numerical rubric was developed during the VVV pilot and approved on 28 September 2026; it was not pre-registered before that research. Cross-project calibration remains limited.

Existing CP and TOLLY v0.1 reviews retain their original version and scores. Any v0.2 reassessment requires a new dated review; it does not silently replace v0.1. Future changes to rules require a new methodology version, while factual corrections retain the applied methodology and record a new review revision.

FLS is not an investment recommendation, price forecast, guarantee against scams, guarantee of safety, legal opinion or financial advice. Low scores do not establish fraud; high scores do not establish investment merit. Token utility, demand, revenue capture, buybacks and burns belong to a separate planned product and are not additional FLS points.