DISCOVERY / RESEARCH PIPELINE

Discover money worth researching

Turn a new lead into a testable monetary thesis. Market size and incomplete evidence do not decide admission.

Rules & sources

03new to research06research candidates

New to research ≠ newly launched. Queue order is not an investment rating.

Queue updated 2026-10-02

Research themeResearch stage

New to research only6 candidates · new additions shown first

XELIS XEL

Monetary privacyIssuance & purchasing power

To screen

Protocol-level amount and balance confidentiality makes default-transfer exposure worth examining.

Evidence in hand

The site and repository describe homomorphic protection for amounts and balances; documentation also specifies developer rewards.

Critical question

Encrypted values do not imply hidden address links, and developer rewards require a separate distribution assessment.

Next verification

Reproduce a default transfer, record six exposure fields, then reconcile current reward allocation.

Open research card & sourcesNew to research

Initial source review; no 96-criterion assessment or independent execution. Sources reviewed: 2026-10-02

Monetary thesis

Privacy without a separate user mode could support fungibility; real transactions must establish the protection.

Native-token demand

Native payments and fees are hypotheses to test; contract counts do not establish holding demand.

Distribution & authority

Documents list developer rewards and transition ranges; verify active height, recipients and control.

Valuation status

Circulation, quote identity and executable depth are unverified; no cheap/expensive judgment.

Review trigger

Review reproducible changes to default privacy, reward shares or material security audits.

What would weaken the thesis

Reliably linkable default transfers weaken the fungibility thesis; unreconciled supply blocks valuation comparison.

Latest record

Added to this research queue on October 2; this is not a launch date.

Traceable sources

XELIS — protocol overviewProject documentation · Privacy goals and protocol entry points; outcomes remain unmeasured.XELIS — source repositoryPublic code entry point · An implementation entry point, not a reproduced or deployment-verified result.XELIS — documentationProject documentation · Reconcile developer-reward rules by block height.

Tari XTM

Monetary privacyIssuance & purchasing power

To screen

Privacy and open mining merit research; start with distribution and the two-layer token relationship.

Evidence in hand

Official tokenomics describes PoW issuance, a 30% XTM premine and an XTM-burn / L2-TARI-mint design.

Critical question

Premine, vesting and tail issuance matter; L2 usage does not automatically produce net XTM demand.

Next verification

Reconcile issuance, vesting, L1 burns and L2 demand separately; confirm deployed mechanisms.

Open research card & sourcesNew to research

Initial source review; no 96-criterion assessment or independent execution. Sources reviewed: 2026-10-02

Monetary thesis

Private settlement and application usage would need to create durable native demand to support monetary value.

Native-token demand

Test the chain from usage through burns to holding demand.

Distribution & authority

The 30% premine is documented; current unlocks and control distribution remain unverified.

Valuation status

Identify XTM and L2 TARI separately; no combined valuation yet.

Review trigger

Review deployed-version changes, allocation unlocks or verifiable burn demand.

What would weaken the thesis

If real usage cannot offset new sell pressure, application growth fails to support the native-value thesis.

Latest record

Added October 2 for issuance and value-transmission screening.

Traceable sources

Tari — tokenomicsProject documentation · Distribution, vesting, tail issuance and layer relationship; not deployment proof.Tari — protocol repositoryPublic code entry point · Entry point for pinning a version and consensus parameters.

QRL QRL

Post-quantum securityIssuance & purchasing power

To screen

A comparison case for Quantus: examine how post-quantum upgrades affect monetary rules.

Evidence in hand

The September 25 official update lists remaining QRL 2.0 Testnet V3 work and separates 1.x from 2.0.

Critical question

Do not credit mainnet with testnet capabilities; migration and supply require reconciliation.

Next verification

Pin the current mainnet version; separate deployed 1.x capabilities from 2.0 tests.

Open research card & sourcesNew to research

Initial source review; no 96-criterion assessment or independent execution. Sources reviewed: 2026-10-02

Monetary thesis

Post-quantum signatures are a security property; holding, migration and monetary demand need separate tests.

Native-token demand

Whether security demand translates into settlement and holding demand is unmeasured.

Distribution & authority

Review present issuance, upgrade authority and post-migration distribution separately.

Valuation status

No identity- and supply-checked quote is connected; missing quotes do not imply a low cap.

Review trigger

Reassess on a verifiable 2.0 mainnet, migration specification or audit remediation.

What would weaken the thesis

If upgrades introduce inescapable control or migration risk, weaken the sovereignty thesis.

Latest record

An existing project newly added to this queue; tracking test progress, not claiming a new coin.

Traceable sources

QRL — September 25, 2026 updateProject documentation · A team report; reported audit completion is not an independent audit by this site.QRL — documentationProject documentation · Separates current documentation and the 2.0 testnet entry point.

Hacash HAC

Issuance & purchasing power

Deep research

Issuance, purchasing power and native-pricing theses already have research; real usage is the next valuable evidence.

Evidence in hand

There are 96 criterion records and pinned-code references; actual supply and demand gaps remain.

Critical question

Issuance mechanics alone do not establish stable purchasing power, fair distribution or executable valuation.

Next verification

Reconcile HAC circulation and market depth; sample unsubsidized native payments.

Open research card & sourcesExisting research

96 questions recorded; coverage does not mean every claim is established. Sources reviewed: 2026-09-29

Monetary thesis

Supply rules and sustained monetary demand must both hold for the purchasing-power thesis.

Native-token demand

Payments and native pricing remain unmeasured; do not combine HAC, HACD and BTC value claims.

Distribution & authority

Review issuance rules separately from launch distribution and current control.

Valuation status

Circulation remains unresolved; scenarios are available without treating missing values as zero.

Review trigger

Escalate on independent supply reconciliation, payment samples or executable depth.

What would weaken the thesis

Predominantly speculative demand and absent native pricing weaken the stability thesis.

Latest record

Retains September 29 evidence; adds a review task, not a new mainnet measurement.

Traceable sources

S72 · Hacash — Monetary systemProject documentation & code · Project positioning of HAC, HACD and BTC; stability and fair distribution still need independent data.S70 · Hacash — Channel interest calculationPrimary documentation & code · Interest based on height and locked balances; not consumer-price feedback or preservation evidence.S71 · Hacash — Standard monetary parametersPrimary documentation & code · Segmented rewards and the 1 HAC post-table rule at the pinned 1.2.0 commit; not total net supply or live adoption evidence.

Open existing research Explore valuation scenarios

Pearl PRL

Compute & monetary demandIssuance & purchasing power

Tracking

AI computation in issuance is worth examining; identify why demand needs native PRL.

Evidence in hand

Protocol specifications, pinned node code and emission checks support mechanism analysis.

Critical question

Matrix work does not establish commercial demand; company revenue is not automatically token-holder income.

Next verification

Find externally paid tasks, verifiable delivery and PRL settlement; separate subsidies.

Open research card & sourcesExisting research

Ten early property reviews; no complete 96-criterion assessment. Sources reviewed: 2026-09-29

Monetary thesis

Useful computation needs verifiable external payments and native demand to go beyond a mining-subsidy loop.

Native-token demand

Collect evidence for compute usage, payment, then PRL settlement or holding.

Distribution & authority

Pinned-code constraints do not establish audited launch or current ownership distribution.

Valuation status

Identity-link-checked quotes are connected; circulation and depth need independent checks.

Review trigger

Review independent payments, reproduction or issuance/circulation reconciliation.

What would weaken the thesis

Reward-driven demand without native-token transmission weakens the monetary thesis.

Latest record

Retains September 29 mechanism evidence; quote integration is in Opportunity & Valuation.

Traceable sources

S73 · Pearl — VisionProject documentation & code · Connects Pearl Research to native PRL; AI business revenue is not automatically a token-holder entitlement.S74 · Pearl — Floating Point Scheme SpecificationProject documentation & code · September 2026 FP8 protocol specification and security assumptions; not proof of economic usefulness or deployment.S75 · Pearl — Node and walletProject documentation & code · Pinned c69bd43; node, wallet and operating paths. No full-node replay performed.S76 · Pearl — Emission and transaction validationProject documentation & code · 2.1 billion PRL parameter, declining subsidy and amount checks; does not establish an audited launch distribution.

Open existing research Explore valuation scenarios

Quantus QTC

Post-quantum securityMonetary privacyIssuance & purchasing power

Tracking

Post-quantum and privacy designs also need monetary-authority and distribution review.

Evidence in hand

Whitepaper, genesis allocations and upgrade-authority code are located; deployed state still needs reconciliation.

Critical question

The 27% genesis allocation and Root / FastUpgrade powers are material trade-offs; privacy is field-limited.

Next verification

Match mainnet runtime and authorities; verify vesting and default transaction fields.

Open research card & sourcesExisting research

Ten early property reviews; no complete 96-criterion assessment. Sources reviewed: 2026-09-29

Monetary thesis

Security, privacy and sovereignty must coexist for technical differences to become durable monetary advantages.

Native-token demand

Post-quantum security does not automatically create holding demand; observe settlement use.

Distribution & authority

Reconcile genesis distribution, vesting, privileged powers and deployed version together.

Valuation status

Quotes and circulation are not reconciled; research remains open without an undervaluation claim.

Review trigger

Review authority removal, deployment audits, vesting changes or reproducible privacy samples.

What would weaken the thesis

Persistent control concentration or weaker privacy measurements undermine sovereignty and privacy theses.

Latest record

Retains September 29 evidence; adds comparison questions with QRL.

Traceable sources

S79 · Quantus — Whitepaper v0.4.1Project documentation & code · 2026-09-09 issuance, allocations and governance. Documentation, code and deployed rules require separate checks.S81 · Quantus — Mainnet vestingProject documentation & code · Pinned 482c5b9: 27% genesis allocation, liquidity vesting and grant exceptions; reconcile to genesis state.S97 · Quantus — Runtime constantsPrimary sources & data · MAX_SUPPLY, units and fee scaling; pinned source is not a mainnet state proof.S98 · Quantus — Runtime authorities and reward configurationPrimary sources & data · Root / FastUpgrade authority, technical-collective configuration and mining cap; deployed runtime still needs reconciliation.

Open existing research Explore valuation scenarios

FROM SIGNAL TO RESEARCH

How a lead becomes useful research

Open potential research

Verify identity

Cross-check website, code, native asset and launch records. Forks can enter; repackaging must be identified.

Write a falsifiable thesis

Identify the monetary improvement, native-demand pathway and strongest possible counterevidence.

Separate evidence and value

No 70% evidence gate. Track gaps; keep unknown caps unknown and verify supply and depth.

Review on evidence changes

Review deployments, supply reconciliation, real usage, authority or security events. Archive failed theses with reopening conditions.

Project claims, locatable code and independent reproduction are different evidence. New candidates have source screening only, without full monetary scores; mining or testing does not establish an investment case.

Discovery sources & current coverage

GitHub

Automatic leads

Discover protocol repositories and recent pushes. Includes forks, with no star or cap admission gate.

Keyword results may include tutorials, tools and duplicates; push time is not launch time.

MiningPoolStats

Manual entry point

Find candidates through coin additions, mining networks and block activity.

Pool statistics are not a security audit or proof of fair issuance.

Bitcointalk

Manual entry point

Trace launch announcements, initial issuance claims and subsequent changes.

Announcements are claims to reconcile with code, genesis and on-chain outcomes.

CoinGecko

Manual entry point

Find newly listed quote identities; cross-check website, chain and contract.

Listing date is not launch date; quotes do not establish circulation or executable depth.

The editorial queue updates after review; external leads never become recommendations automatically. A missing candidate can be reviewed using its website, code and one testable monetary thesis.