2026-01-14 11:40:50

#数字资产市场动态 Recently, RootData launched a "Transparency Sweep" campaign, directly calling out projects like MBD Financials, Geeq, Waterfall Network, Synthesys, and Rubix — the issues are quite concerning: their funding details are either incomplete or hidden, raising questions about their authenticity.

Honestly, this problem of information chaos has long needed a solution. RootData's transparency scoring system (graded from A to F) is actually quite practical — an A grade indicates complete and timely information, while an F grade is like a black hole of data. The lower the score, the greater the hidden risks.

Looking at it from another perspective, projects proactively revealing their funding details is a practice worth encouraging. By making core data public, their scores naturally improve, and investors can feel more assured. RootData's current oversight mechanism is interesting: projects that hide details for a long time will eventually be exposed.

That said, I want to ask everyone — what information do you care about most when investing? Funding rounds? Backers? Or specific numbers? Have you ever suffered losses due to opaque project information? $ETH

ETH-3,22%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

24 Likes

Reward
24
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

StablecoinAnxiety

· 01-16 21:32

Damn, these projects are really incredible. The funding data is coming out like squeezing toothpaste. I just want to know how they have the nerve to do this. Honestly, I only look at the background teams and funding institutions. Series A can still be fooled, but Series B without any reputation just passes directly. Someone should have done this transparency sweep earlier, so we wouldn't get cut so thoroughly. These F-rated projects must be really hyped to make such a big fuss about this. They really have a screw loose. It feels like RootData's move is a bit ruthless, but it’s definitely top-notch. That’s the only way to control these hiding and withholding types.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeVictim

· 01-14 15:43

It's the same old trick again, hiding the financing details so tightly that I'm already tired of it. The previous project suffered huge losses because of information asymmetry. Now looking at the RootData scoring system, it's just so-so. F-rated terrible projects should have been cleared out long ago. The last question hit the mark. What I value most is the VC background and funding rounds. Numbers are too easy to manipulate.

View OriginalReply0

ZKSherlock

· 01-14 12:10

actually... the whole "transparency scoring" thing is just a band-aid over the real problem—we're still trusting centralized gatekeepers to verify what's legit. where's the cryptographic proof? why do we need an A-F grade when we could have zero-knowledge proofs of reserve or something actually verifiable

Reply0

MEVHunter_9000

· 01-14 12:10

It was about time someone took care of these black box projects, really annoying. --- F-level projects, don't bother my feed. --- Funding figures are hidden and dodged, I just pass, no time for this. --- RootData did a good job this time, nailed those who are fishing in troubled waters. --- Honestly, it's still a trust issue; data transparency gives confidence. --- After being scammed twice, I learned to first check the funding background, then verify the authenticity of the funds. --- The transparency scoring system is a good idea, it all depends on whether projects truly cooperate. --- Most F-level projects probably don't have anything good; if they can hide, there’s usually a reason.

View OriginalReply0

HodlKumamon

· 01-14 11:58

Data speaks for itself. Those F-grade projects will eventually fail. I took a look at the transparency data from the past three years for 熊熊, and projects that hide information have a 73% higher probability of跑路. I've only been burned once. The background of the financing party sounded impressive but they never disclosed details. Later, they just disappeared—a painful lesson. What I value most are the funding rounds and specific figures. These are the ultimate tools for exposing lies. No matter how luxurious the background, if the data doesn't match, it's all meaningless. Honestly, the RootData scoring system really feels satisfying. Black hole projects can no longer hide. The gap between A-grade and F-grade projects is really significant. Basically, it's the difference between having the guts to show your cards and not. Those projects that were called out will find it very hard to raise funds again. Once transparency collapses, it can't be restored. It's definitely something to be cautious about.

View OriginalReply0