Separate monetary quality and observed adoption, then examine entry price and the conditions for future outcomes.
Assess each layer separately, without a combined score. Strong quality does not establish broad adoption; broad adoption does not establish a cheap entry price.
Incomplete evidence can still warrant research. Identify monetary mechanisms, then test valuation and participation conditions.
This research order emphasizes neutral distribution, purchasing power and sovereignty. HAC’s adjustment outcomes and PRL holding demand are unproven, and neither has independently verified fair distribution. Unknown allocation does not make either fairer than QTC.
For a supply-and-purchasing-power thesis, HAC poses the most direct question. Test the mechanism’s outcomes; sound-money performance is not established.
Adjustable supply has not demonstrated steadier purchasing power. HACD or ecosystem value must not be assigned wholesale to HAC.
For new monetary demand linked to AI, investigate PRL first. The question is why more computation requires buying or holding PRL.
AI revenue is not a PRL equity or dividend right. Cheaper issuance could also add sell pressure; this is an economic hypothesis to test.
QTC fits a post-quantum-payment thesis. If neutral distribution is the priority, first decide whether designated genesis allocation and upgrade authorization are acceptable.
Pinned code records 27% genesis allocation and Root / FastUpgrade authorization. Wormhole protects links while entry/exit addresses and amounts remain visible. Live state needs separate verification.
| Question | Hacash HAC | Pearl PRL | Quantus QTC |
|---|---|---|---|
| How does value reach the native coin? | Demand hypothesis Native payments or contracts → HAC holding, payment and fee demand; burns and interest change net supply. Demand scale and persistence remain unmeasured. S62S64S70 | Demand hypothesis Producing PRL alongside AI work describes issuance. Separate evidence must show PRL demand from customers, applications or reserve holders absorbing new issuance. S73S74S75 | Demand hypothesis Post-quantum payments, fees and monetary holdings support QTC demand only through actual use; a cryptographic choice does not guarantee demand. S79S81S82 |
| Is distribution neutral? | Not independently verified Open-mining claims do not establish launch or beneficial-ownership fairness. S72 | Not independently verified The subsidy function does not rule out other allocations; genesis and early issuance require replay. S76 | Documented institutional cost Pinned code specifies a 27% genesis allocation, designated recipients and different vesting schedules; live state requires reconciliation. S81 |
| Does it preserve and stabilize purchasing power? | No comparable measurement Current evidence cannot establish a relative winner; neither a cap nor supply adjustment substitutes for outcomes. Measurement gap | No comparable measurement Current evidence cannot establish a relative winner; neither a cap nor supply adjustment substitutes for outcomes. Measurement gap | No comparable measurement Current evidence cannot establish a relative winner; neither a cap nor supply adjustment substitutes for outcomes. Measurement gap |
| What does privacy protect? | Public addresses and amounts Native transfer code; future features excluded. S64 | Ordinary payments are not shielded by default ZK for computation does not imply shielded transfer amounts. S74S78 | Link protection; amounts remain visible Wormhole entry/exit addresses and amounts are visible; not full-field privacy. S82 |
| Who can affect the rules? | Practical checks need review Public node code does not establish dispersed power. S65 | Practical checks need review Developer, pool and node influence is unmeasured. S75 | Upgrade authorization located Root / FastUpgrade path; live members and deployed runtime still need confirmation. S98 |
| Next evidence that could change the decision | Reconcile HAC circulation and executable depth, then test purchasing power. This distinguishes a potential opportunity from an illiquidity discount. Evidence ledger | Obtain reproducible paid-workload, reuse-cost and actual PRL usage/holding-demand samples. Evidence ledger | First reconcile genesis, unlocks and live upgrade authority and obtain audit reports; then verify demand and exit depth. Evidence ledger |
The previous fit scores used different assessed subsets. Here all three use the same 6 scored properties, covering 45% of current weight. The remainder stays outside this comparison.
Differences within the shared subset come only from: Supply credibility, Privacy & fungibility. This establishes neither AI demand, post-quantum adoption nor purchasing-power outcomes, and excludes distribution when not scored for all three.
| Shared assessed property | Weight | HAC | PRL | QTC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply credibility | 5% | 3 / 4 | 4 / 4 | 4 / 4 |
| Privacy & fungibility | 20% | 0 / 4 | 0 / 4 | 1 / 4 |
| Self-sovereignty | 5% | 4 / 4 | 4 / 4 | 4 / 4 |
| Independent verifiability | 5% | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
| Settlement security | 5% | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
| Monetary governance | 5% | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
Allowing each project’s unknowns to vary independently over 0–4 leaves all three pairwise comparisons unresolved. A higher shared-subset score is not higher overall investment value.
Uses existing 0–4 assessments with a common comparison basis. Scores are not probabilities of evidence reliability; project dossiers retain the detailed rationale.
Connect each thesis to its entry valuation: reconcile HAC supply and depth; PRL has an identity-link-checked quote but demand and supply still require verification; review QTC allocation and authority. The four scenarios above show valuation changes and evidence requirements.
Compare valuation conditionsResearch thesis: can computation serving paid AI demand also secure consensus and broaden monetary use? Efficiency, real demand and PRL value capture each require evidence.
If work lacks paying demand, meaningful shortcuts exist, or business revenue creates no PRL demand, AI growth does not directly support token value.
This separate early mechanism review uses the same 0–4 rubric; it neither replaces completed 96-criterion profiles nor establishes adoption or valuation.
| Property / band | Evidence & interpretation |
|---|---|
| Supply credibility4 / 4Code · not field-tested | The pinned subsidy function uses a 2.1 billion PRL parameter and declines with height; this is not an independent circulation audit. Scoring rubric0 discretionary issuance; 1 weak constraints; 2 major rule gaps; 3 predictable continuing issuance; 4 explicit finite issuance. This axis favors a finite supply, not a purchasing-power outcome. |
| Purchasing-power preservation—Unscored | Comparable empirical evidence is missing; retain unknown pending independent samples. Scoring rubricSix projects now have a common U.S. CPI real-return sample. Cross-basket robustness and 0–4 thresholds remain undefined, so bands stay unknown. |
| Purchasing-power stability—Unscored | Comparable empirical evidence is missing; retain unknown pending independent samples. Scoring rubricSix projects have aligned historical purchasing-power, volatility and drawdown data; common 0–4 thresholds are still undefined. Mechanisms and future potential receive separate conditional analysis. Scoring history does not require proving future stability. |
| Distribution neutrality—Unscored | A subsidy function alone cannot establish no preallocation or fair participation; genesis, early miners and ownership need review. Scoring rubric0 exclusive allocation; 1 designated issuance beneficiaries; 2 mining with launch or ownership gaps; 3 relatively documented open issuance history; 4 independently verified history and beneficial ownership. |
| Censorship resistance—Unscored | Comparable empirical evidence is missing; retain unknown pending independent samples. Scoring rubric0 central permission; 1 prominent filter point; 2 open broadcast with visible targeting clues; 3 default privacy limits targeting; 4 supported by measurements across attack scenarios. |
| Privacy & fungibility0 / 4Document-based | The explorer exposes transaction values; ZK for computation is not default shielding of ordinary payments. Scoring rubric0 ordinary transfers public; 1 limited-field protection or visible boundaries; 2 optional shielding of parties and amounts; 3 strong default protection with notable exceptions; 4 mandatory multi-field protection for ordinary transfers. No level implies absolute anonymity. |
| Self-sovereignty4 / 4Document-based | The official repository offers node and self-custody wallet paths; recovery and node verification have not been independently tested. Scoring rubric0 mandatory custody; 1 severely restricted exit; 2 permission-dependent self-custody; 3 self-custody with specific dependencies; 4 native key custody and an independent-node path. Protocol capability does not guarantee practical access. |
| Independent verifiability2 / 4Document-based | The novel work proof is specified publicly; this research has not reproduced all validation and security assumptions. Scoring rubric0 unauditable issuance; 1 one authority; 2 incomplete critical validation; 3 independently verifiable proofs or extension rules; 4 directly inspectable public amounts and transactions. This axis favors audit directness, not superior security. |
| Settlement security2 / 4Code · not field-tested | Mainnet parameters specify a 194-second target; interval is not economic finality. Scoring rubric0 unilateral reversal; 1 limited consensus assurance; 2 verifiable PoW with unmeasured economic security; 3 more documented rules and operating history; 4 aligned attack-cost and operational measurements. |
| Monetary governance2 / 4Document-based | Repository and updates are public; practical checks among developers, pools and nodes need examination. Scoring rubric0 unilateral control; 1 dominant control point; 2 open proposals or code with influence gaps; 3 more documented public change procedures; 4 empirically established dispersed checks and accountability. |
Use common properties and weights to assess rules, rights and outcomes, retaining intervals for unknowns. Merchant counts, user counts and market cap add no quality points. Historical purchasing power can be measured; mechanism potential has separate conditions and counterevidence.
Quality rankingExamine the scale, persistence and contexts of actual holding, payments and native pricing. Live features, address growth and exchange volume are not substitutes for adoption evidence. Documentary observations and missing measurements remain distinct.
Adoption evidenceAnalyze entry conditions using price, float, dilution and executable depth, then test how demand reaches holders. The 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 5× cap scenarios change valuation assumptions, not quality or adoption conclusions. Reference caps are not target caps.
Valuation scenariosThe three layers have no combined score. The former quality-and-relative-cap potential index is no longer displayed; a small market cap does not establish undervaluation.