2026 Cryptocurrency Industry Investor Relations and Token Transparency Status Report

Author: Connor King, Founder of Novora

Translated by: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

Last month, we published our report: “Is Investor Relations Important in Cryptocurrency?” Here is the follow-up. Based on the initial set of 53 protocol datasets, we expanded it to 150+ protocols, covering all major tracks: DEX, lending, perpetual contracts, liquidity staking, L1, L2, bridges, DePIN, AI, stablecoins, infrastructure, and CEX tokens. The fully diluted valuation (FDV) ranges from $40 million to $45 billion.

For each protocol, we checked 15 binary, verifiable indicators: does the protocol disclose this information? Yes/No. Every data point was cross-verified through public sources: Artemis, Tokenterminal, Blockworks, Dune, DefiLlama.

We found the following:

Market makers are undisclosed in less than 1% of cases.

50 protocols. Total daily trading volume adds up to billions of dollars. But only one protocol publicly discloses information about its market-making arrangements.

Market makers set the conditions for token trading. These protocols typically include token lending, options structures, and performance incentives, all of which directly affect price discovery. In traditional markets, such important arrangements are disclosed. But in the crypto market, every market participant trades in an environment of information opacity.

Meteora is the only protocol whose 2025 token holders’ annual report discloses its market-making arrangements information. Out of 150+ protocols, only one.

This is the most far-reaching transparency gap in the industry.

91% of companies have revenue data. 3% of companies have dedicated investor relations centers.

In this audit, nearly all protocols publicly provide revenue data via third-party platforms or their own data dashboards. The raw data exists.

But only 3% of companies have built dedicated investor relations centers to integrate this data into an investor-facing experience. The exceptions include Meteora, Jito, Jupiter, Raydium, and MetaDAO. All other protocols scatter information across blogs, governance forums, X threads, and third-party platforms. There is no centralized, institutional-level investor experience. The gap is not about whether data is available—it’s about communication infrastructure.

9% submitted the Blockworks TTF

The Blockworks Token Transparency Framework (Token Transparency Framework) was submitted to the U.S. SEC in June 2025. It covers 18 disclosure standards related to supply, distribution, financials, and market structure, supported by Pantera, L1D, and Theia. Among the 150+ protocols audited, only 13 submitted the framework: Jito, Jupiter, Raydium, Morpho, Aerodrome, MetaDAO, Maple, dYdX, Euler, Marinade, EtherFi, Gains Network, and Meteora.

This is a substantive improvement compared with zero submissions. However, the submission rate fell from 25% for the initial 53 protocols to 9% for 150+ protocols. The original dataset was biased toward DeFi protocols that adopted the TTF early. With the sample expanded, the picture is clearer: the vast majority of protocols in the market have not chosen to join. No L1, no L2, and no infrastructure protocols submitted the framework. The framework already exists—more protocols should use it.

38% have active value capture, 62% give nothing back

Our definition of “active value capture” is relatively broad: does the protocol have at least one running mechanism that directs economic value directly to token holders (excluding governance rights)? Among 150+ protocols, we identified six different models:

Direct fee distribution (JUP, DYDX, GMX)

Buyback and burn (HYPE, RAY, MET)

Staking revenue sharing (PENDLE, AAVE, ETHFI)

Conditional buyback (LDO)

ve model cycle distribution (AERO)

Governance only, no economic rights (MORPHO, LINK, ARB)

62% of protocols fall into the last category—tokens with only governance rights and no value capture, including some of the largest market-cap projects in the industry. The differences across tracks are very clear: 62% of perpetual contract protocols have active value capture, while only 12% of L1/L2 tokens do. Perpetual contract tracks view aligning token holder interests as a competitive advantage, and L1 foundations have not done so yet. A deeper analysis of which models truly work will be published next week.

The data layer is in place; the communication layer is not

We examined five major third-party platforms: Token Terminal, Dune Analytics, Artemis, DefiLlama, and Blockworks Research. The first four platforms each cover 85–95% of the datasets. 72% of protocols appear on 4 or more platforms at the same time. Every protocol in the audit appears on at least one platform. The original data infrastructure for institutional analysis is essentially already built. What’s missing is the interpretation, packaging, and communication layer that turns data into an investable narrative.

The full disclosure status across 150+ protocols is as follows:

<1% — Disclose market maker terms 3% — Dedicated IR centers 3% — Provide a one-page overview 5% — Dedicated investor channels 7% — Publish single-token metrics 8% — Token holder reports 9% — Submit TTF 15% — Disclose exchange listing information 18% — Quarterly updates 35% — Revenue line-item disclosures 38% — Active value capture 88% — Disclose circulating supply 91% — Revenue data is accessible

What does this mean

The argument in “Is Investor Relations Important in Crypto?” still holds. As the sample size increases to 150+, the data becomes even more alarming. Crypto protocols are not hiding fundamentals—they just failed to present them. The raw inputs for fundamental analysis already exist on-chain and on third-party platforms, but the “translation layer” and IR infrastructure that turns data into institutional confidence are almost nonexistent. Only 3% have IR centers, less than 1% disclose market maker terms, and 91% of the market has not adopted the only available standardized disclosure framework.

The opportunity for protocols is very clear: the cost of building IR infrastructure is negligible compared to the returns in capital markets. Protocols that invest in it now will be the first to earn the trust of institutional allocators. A complete interactive report covering all 150+ protocols is now live:

Next week, we will publish a comparative report for this series: “Which Token Value Accrual Model Works?” This report will break down in detail the six token value capture mechanisms we identified, their empirical performance, and what this means for token categorization and institutional adoption.

LAYOUT REFERENCE (source): total_lines=69, non_empty_lines=34, blank_lines=35