Type what you hold and see what it is exposed to rather than what it is worth. Checks concentration, whether your diversification is real or whether several holdings share the same driver, the weighted quality of what you own against 924 scored assets, and anything in there that has already failed.
Percentages or amounts both work, and the numbers are only used to work out proportions. Nothing is sent anywhere.
What this answers. Every other tool tells you what a portfolio is worth. This tells you what it is exposed to, which is the question that decides whether a bad week is survivable. It checks each holding against our directory of 924 scored assets, so it can say what each one actually is rather than treating every ticker as interchangeable.
No wallet, no account, no prices. Type what you hold, and the whole analysis runs on your device.
Holding eight assets that all rise and fall together is one position with extra steps. It feels diversified because the list is long, and it behaves like a single bet because the things on the list share the same driver. Five Layer 1 tokens are a bet on the same thesis. Five memecoins are a bet on attention. Five liquid staking tokens are a leveraged bet on one asset with contract risk stacked on top.
This flags those groupings rather than counting names, because the count is the part that misleads people.
Not advice, and not a view on whether anything will go up. It reads structure, not prospects. A portfolio can be beautifully balanced and still lose money, and a concentrated one can be entirely rational if the concentration is deliberate. The purpose is to make sure it is deliberate.
Not necessarily, and this is the misconception the tool exists for. Diversification is about what your holdings are exposed to, not how many names are on the list. Ten Layer 1 tokens are one bet on the same thesis expressed ten ways, and they fall together. Five memecoins are one bet on attention. The tool measures how many independent positions your weighting actually behaves like, which is usually a much smaller number than the count.
There is no correct number, and anyone offering one is guessing at your circumstances. What matters is whether the concentration is deliberate. Someone who has thought about it and chosen to hold 70% in one asset is in a different position from someone who ended up there because it rose and they never rebalanced. The tool flags the level so the decision is conscious.
It reports effective positions, calculated from how the weight is distributed. If you hold ten assets but 85% is in two of them, the other eight are too small to change the outcome, and the portfolio behaves like roughly two positions. It is a more honest description of your exposure than the count.
It is the weighted average of our directory scores, which rate each asset out of 100 across track record, tokenomics, transparency, decentralisation, adoption and liquidity. Weighting by position size matters: a strong small holding does not offset a weak large one. It says nothing about whether prices will rise. It is a statement about what you own, not about what it will do.
No, and you should not need to. Only the proportions are used, so percentages work perfectly. Nothing is sent anywhere: the entire analysis runs in your browser, there is no account, and nothing is stored. You can disconnect from the internet and it will still work.
We score a large directory but not every asset in existence, and new ones appear constantly. Unrecognised tickers still count towards your concentration figures but are excluded from quality and correlation, and the tool says which ones. It is not a judgement on them.
We seal the list every week and keep re-checking every token on it, so you can see what actually happened to them rather than only what is trading today.
