Author: Connor King, Founder of Novora
Compiled by Hu Tao, ChainCatcher
Last month, we released our piece, “Is Investor Relations Important in Cryptocurrency?” This is the follow-up. Building on our initial dataset of 53 protocols, we expanded it to over 150 protocols covering all major sectors: DEXs, lending, perpetuals, liquid staking, L1s, L2s, bridges, DePIN, AI, stablecoins, infrastructure, and CEX tokens. The fully diluted valuations (FDV) of these protocols range from $40 million to $45 billion.
We evaluated 15 binary, verifiable metrics for each protocol: Does the protocol disclose this information? Yes/No. Each data point was cross-verified through public sources: Artemis, TokenTerminal, Blockworks, Dune, DefiLlama.
We have identified the following:
Less than 1% of market makers disclose their market-making terms.
50 protocols. Daily trading volume totals billions of dollars. But only one protocol has publicly disclosed information about its market-making arrangements.
Market makers set the terms for token trading. These agreements often include token lending, options structures, and performance incentives, all of which directly impact price discovery. In traditional markets, such critical agreements are disclosed. However, in the cryptocurrency market, all participants trade under conditions of information asymmetry.
Meteora is the only protocol among more than 150 to disclose its market-making arrangements in its 2025 token holder annual report.
This is the most significant transparency gap in the industry.
91% of companies have revenue data. 3% of companies have an investor relations center.
In this audit, nearly all protocols publicly disclose their revenue data through third-party platforms or their own dashboards. The raw data exists.
But only 3% of projects have established dedicated investor relations hubs that integrate this data into a cohesive investor-facing experience. Exception protocols include Meteora, Jito, Jupiter, Raydium, and MetaDAO. All other protocols scatter information across blogs, governance forums, X threads, and third-party platforms—lacking a centralized, institutional-grade investor experience. The gap is not in data availability, but in communication infrastructure.
9% submitted Blockworks TTF
The Blockworks Token Transparency Framework was submitted to the U.S. SEC in June 2025, covering 18 disclosure standards across supply, distribution, finance, and market structure, supported by Pantera, L1D, and Theia. Of over 150 protocols reviewed, only 13 have submitted this framework: Jito, Jupiter, Raydium, Morpho, Aerodrome, MetaDAO, Maple, dYdX, Euler, Marinade, EtherFi, Gains Network, and Meteora.
This represents substantial progress over zero submissions. However, the submission rate dropped from 25% at 53 protocols to 9% at 150+. The original dataset was biased toward early-adopting DeFi protocols. With a larger sample, the picture is clearer: the vast majority of protocols in the market have not chosen to adopt it. Zero L1, zero L2, and zero infrastructure protocols have submitted this framework. The framework exists—more protocols should use it.
38% have active value capture, 62% return nothing
We define "active value capture" broadly: Does the protocol have at least one operational mechanism that directs economic value directly to token holders (excluding governance rights)? Among over 150 protocols, we identified six distinct patterns:
- Direct Fee Allocation (JUP, DYDX, GMX)
- Repurchase and burn (HYPE, RAY, MET)
- Staking Income Sharing (PENDLE, AAVE, ETHFI)
- Conditional Buyback (LDO)
- VE model cycle allocation (AERO)
- Governance only, no economic rights (MORPHO, LINK, ARB)
62% of protocols fall into the last category—tokens with governance rights only and no value capture, including some of the largest market-cap projects in the industry. The differences across sectors are stark: 62% of perpetual contracts protocols have active value capture, while only 12% of L1/L2 tokens do. The perpetual contracts sector treats token holder alignment as a competitive advantage, something L1 foundations have yet to achieve. A deeper analysis of which models truly work will be released next week.
The data layer has been built, but the communication layer has not yet been built.
We reviewed five major third-party platforms: Token Terminal, Dune Analytics, Artemis, DefiLlama, and Blockworks Research. The first four platforms each cover 85–95% of the dataset. 72% of protocols appear on four or more platforms. Each protocol in the audit appears on at least one platform. The foundational data infrastructure for institutional analysis is largely in place. What’s missing is the interpretation, packaging, and communication layer that transforms this data into actionable narratives.
The full disclosure for 150+ protocols is as follows:
<1% —— Disclosure of Market Maker Terms
3% —— Dedicated IR Center
3% —— Provide a one-page overview
5% —— Exclusive Investor Channel
7% —— Publish single-token metrics
8% —— Token Holder Report
9% —— Submit TTF
15% —— Disclose exchange listing information
18% — Quarterly Update
35% —— Revenue Item Disclosure
38% —— Active Value Capture
88% —— Disclosed Circulating Supply
91% — Income data is available
What does this mean?
The argument in "Is Investor Relations Important in Crypto?" still holds. With the sample size expanded to over 150, the data has become even more alarming. Crypto protocols are not hiding their fundamentals—they simply aren’t presenting them. The raw inputs for fundamental analysis already exist on-chain and on third-party platforms, but the “translation layer” and IR infrastructure needed to convert this data into institutional confidence are nearly nonexistent. Only 3% have an IR center, less than 1% disclose market maker terms, and 91% of the market has yet to adopt the only available standardized disclosure framework.
The opportunity for protocols is clear: the cost of building IR infrastructure is negligible compared to the returns in capital markets. Protocols that invest now will be the first to earn the trust of institutional allocators. The full interactive report, covering all 150+ protocols, is now available:
http://novora.co/research/ir-transparency-2026.html
Next week, we will release the comparative report in this series: “Which Token Value Accrual Model Works?” The report will thoroughly break down the six token value accrual mechanisms we identified, their empirical performance, and what this means for token classification and institutional adoption.