When considering the dynamic world of cryptocurrency, it is imperative for platforms like Mudrex to institute robust and transparent token listing and review guidelines. These guidelines serve as the bedrock of trust and integrity, ensuring that only tokens which meet high standards of quality and reliability are made available to our users.
Our token evaluation process is thorough and multifaceted. We delve into numerous aspects of a token before reaching a decision on its listing status. Here’s a rundown of our rigorous criteria:
Team Commitment: We examine the dedication of the team behind the token, looking for ongoing development, a clear roadmap, and active community engagement. A token may face delisting if we observe a lack of progress or team disengagement.
Development Activity: High-quality code and regular updates on platforms like Github are indicators of a token’s vitality. Inactivity or low-quality development efforts can trigger a review for potential delisting.
Trading Volume and Liquidity: A token must demonstrate a consistent trading volume and maintain adequate liquidity. Should these fall below our minimum thresholds, the token’s status on our platform will be re-evaluated.
Network Safety: The token’s network should display a strong defense against attacks and implement robust security protocols. A history of successful attacks or weak security could result in delisting.
Network/Contract Stability: We look for tokens with high network uptime, no major bugs, and efficient performance. Frequent downtimes or critical unresolved bugs may lead to delisting.
Public Communication: Clear, regular, and transparent communication with the public is essential. Poor communication or misleading information will be flagged for review.
Due Diligence Responsiveness: Tokens on our platform must respond timely and comprehensively to our periodic due diligence inquiries. Non-responsiveness could initiate a delisting process.
Ethical Conduct: We stand firm against unethical practices. Any evidence of fraudulent behavior or negligence is grounds for immediate delisting.
Regulatory Compliance: Adherence to both existing and new regulatory requirements is non-negotiable. Non-compliance can and will lead to delisting.
Ecosystem Contribution: We support tokens that contribute positively to a healthy and sustainable crypto ecosystem. Tokens without clear benefits to the ecosystem are subject to review.
Exchange Backing: Tokens backed by reputable exchanges instill greater confidence and are more likely to be listed on our platform.
Founders and Backers: A credible and experienced team and backing are key indicators of a token’s potential longevity and success.
Previous Hacks: A token with a history of unresolved security breaches or repeated hacks will be closely scrutinized and potentially delisted.
Smart Contract Auditing: Engagement with reputable auditors and positive audit reports bolster a token’s listing prospects.
Trading Volume (CEXs vs DEXs): A healthy balance and sufficient decentralization of trading volume are essential. An over-reliance on either centralized or decentralized exchanges can be a red flag.
Third-Party Audit Reports: Positive assessments from third parties enhance trustworthiness, while negative reports can lead to delisting.
Volume and Exchange Listings: We monitor volume consistency with market trends and seek tokens listed on multiple reputable exchanges.
Our commitment to these guidelines is unwavering, as they are crucial in safeguarding our users’ interests and maintaining the integrity of the crypto space. We believe in fostering an environment where innovation thrives but not at the expense of security and trust.
Remember, the crypto journey is as much about innovation as it is about prudence. At Mudrex, we navigate this path by ensuring that our platform remains a bastion of reliability for our community. Let’s continue to invest in the future—responsibly.
| Criteria | Benchmark for Listing | Benchmark for Delisting |
|---|---|---|
| Team Commitment | Ongoing development, clear roadmap, active engagement | Lack of progress, team disengagement |
| Development Activity | Regular updates, high-quality code, active Github | Inactive development, low-quality updates |
| Trading Volume & Liquidity | Meets minimum threshold, consistent activity, sufficient for liquidity | Falls below minimum threshold, inconsistent activity, insufficient for liquidity |
| Network Safety | Proven resilience to attacks, strong security measures | History of successful attacks, weak security |
| Network/Contract Stability | High uptime, no major bugs, efficient performance | Frequent downtimes, critical unresolved bugs |
| Public Communication | Regular, clear, and transparent updates | Poor or no communication, misleading information |
| Due Diligence Responsiveness | Timely and complete responses to inquiries | Non-responsiveness, incomplete disclosures |
| Ethical Conduct | No history of unethical behavior, positive reputation | Proven unethical/fraudulent conduct or negligence |
| Regulatory Compliance | Adherence to new and existing regulations | Non-compliance with regulatory requirements |
| Ecosystem Contribution | Demonstrable benefit to the crypto ecosystem | No clear value add, or detrimental impact on the ecosystem |
| Exchange Backing | Support from reputable exchanges | Lack of support or delisting from other exchanges |
| Founders & Backers | Credible and experienced team and backers | Questionable background of team or backers |
| Previous Hacks | None, or satisfactory resolution of past incidents | Unresolved security breaches, repeated hacks |
| Smart Contract Auditing | Engagement with reputable auditors, positive reports | No audit, or negative audit findings |
| Trading Volume (CEXs vs DEXs) | Healthy balance, sufficient decentralization of volume | Over-reliance on either CEXs or DEXs, low volume |
| Third-Party Audit Reports | Positive assessments, high trustworthiness | Negative assessments, low trustworthiness |
