Our Approach
BlockBuild Report evaluates projects on what they have built, not what they promise to build. Every assessment begins with the project's public claims — roadmap items, feature announcements, tokenomics documentation — and independently verifies each one against live deployments, on-chain data, and publicly accessible code.
We do not accept payment for audits. We do not notify projects before publication. Every score reflects hands-on verification performed without developer assistance or access to staging environments.
Deliverable Verification
Does the project deliver what it claims? We test every stated feature, product, and milestone against reality.
What we check: Live product functionality, feature completeness vs. roadmap claims, uptime and reliability, user-facing quality. Every claimed deliverable is loaded, tested, and documented. Vaporware scores zero. Partial implementations receive proportional credit.
How it affects the grade: This is the highest-weighted criterion because execution separates real projects from slide decks. A project with a beautiful website but no working product will score poorly here.
Code Activity
Is the project actively developed? We examine commit history, repository structure, and deployment patterns.
What we check: GitHub/GitLab commit frequency, contributor count, code quality indicators, deployment cadence, dependency management. Repos with only initial commits and no follow-up activity raise red flags. We also check for copy-paste codebases forked without modification.
How it affects the grade: Active development signals a team that is iterating and improving. Dormant repos with months of inactivity suggest abandonment or a finished cash-grab.
Team Transparency
Can the team be identified and held accountable? Anonymous teams with no verifiable track record receive lower scores.
What we check: Public team identities, LinkedIn/professional profiles, prior project history, on-site documentation of team members, verifiable credentials. We do not require doxxing — pseudonymous teams with established reputations and verifiable histories qualify.
How it affects the grade: Accountability matters. Projects where no one can be identified or contacted present higher risk. Teams with documented identities and professional backgrounds score highest.
Tokenomics Design
Are the token economics sound, transparent, and aligned with holders' interests?
What we check: Total supply, tax structure, distribution fairness, vesting schedules, liquidity lock status, on-chain verification of claimed parameters. We compare documented tokenomics against actual on-chain data. Discrepancies between claims and reality result in significant score reductions.
How it affects the grade: Predatory tokenomics — hidden taxes, insider allocations, unlocked liquidity — are the most common mechanism for rug pulls. Clean, transparent tokenomics with on-chain verification score highest.
Community Health
Is there genuine community engagement, or manufactured activity?
What we check: Social media engagement authenticity, Telegram/Discord activity patterns, holder distribution, organic vs. bot-driven metrics, community governance participation. We look for signs of purchased followers, bot-driven chat activity, and artificially inflated holder counts.
How it affects the grade: Healthy communities with organic engagement reflect genuine interest and long-term viability. Projects relying on bots and paid shills to simulate activity receive lower scores.
Grading Scale
Final scores are converted to letter grades. Each grade reflects the weighted composite of all five criteria.