General feedback on Transparency Framework which I have relayed back to the @blockworksres team: 1. Committing vs Doing I believe there needs to be a differentiation between a project committing to a certain aspect of the framework vs. a project which already carries out that activity. For example, @MorphoLabs should get awarded full points for having a real-time data dashboard that tracks protocol activity, vs. a project like @JupiterExchange which has only committed to creating such a dashboard but doesn't do so already. This applies to other 'token holder reports' which are difficult to create and compile, but once done it shows an extra level of transparency that few projects in the space fulfill. 2. Promote best practices by incorporating an opinionated framework I believe there is room for this framework to grow into a 'best practices' guideline for projects. Some of the criteria asks projects to just be transparent about certain practices - e.g. to clarify whether locked tokens can be staked, or to commit to providing information on MM and Exchange Listing deals. The framework should over time develop into penalising bad practices - any projects that allow locked tokens to be staked and receive rewards should not be awarded under the framework as this is clearly value extractive. In this way, @Blockworks_ can guide the industry into making better decisions. The same applies to exchange listings, vesting schedules, or insider token allocations. 3. Increase the weightings of certain metrics This is very subjective but I believe 3 weightings should be tweaked: 1. Equity<>Token Relationship should be more important particularly since Blockworks is already differentiating between just pure transparency (half points) and transparency+alignment (full points). 2. MM Deals & Exchange Listings should be awarded more points given there is 0 transparency on these deals in the industry as of now. 3. Financial Disclosures - this should also have a much larger weighting. Protocols that have built out real-time data dashboards are committed to showing their investors (tokenholders) the traction that the protocol is gaining, regardless of whether its positive or negative. The main reason why data is obscure for many protocols is simply because they do not want to showcase the lack of traction. This could be done either internally or via any 3rd party entity: Dune, TokenTerminal, DeFiLlama, or Blockworks itself. 4. Commodities vs. Quasi Equity Tokens I have always seen most crypto tokens as 'quasi equities' - they should give holders economic ownership over the cashflows generated by the protocol as well as governance rights. But this is not the case for some assets like BTC, ETH, SOL, and TAO, which are more akin to commodities. They are to a large extent decentralised and holding the asset is more like holding a Store of Value/an asset that lets you participate in the on chain economy. I believe this framework is not really applicable to the latter for the above reasons. So, in a way, the assets listed above are admitting that they should be seen as Equities? Something to think about. All in all this is a great framework for the industry, and clearly monetisable in the long-term btw. It has clear synergies with @Blockworks_'s data and advisory businesses, and in the future Blockworks could even license the results to create an altcoin index based on transparency. Love to see how Blockworks is growing while also being a value-add to the space. One of the best firms in crypto ngl.