Self-Score
MoreRight scored against its own framework. Same tool. Same criteria. No exceptions.
Last updated: February 2026 — next quarterly review: May 2026
Why This Page Exists
A rating agency that doesn't rate itself has a credibility problem. S&P publishes their methodology. We go further: we apply the full diagnostic to every component of this project, publish the scores, identify where we're weak, and track improvement over time.
If you're considering trusting our scores on other systems, start here. If we can't score ourselves honestly, nothing else matters.
Composite Score
| Component | Score | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Site (moreright.xyz) | 2 / 12 | LOW |
| Papers & Research | 1 / 12 | LOW |
| Revenue Model (Rating Agency) | 3 / 12 | LOW |
| Organization (DAO / Governance) | 4 / 12 | MODERATE |
| Token ($MORR) | 7 / 12 | MODERATE |
| Weighted Composite | ~3 / 12 | LOW |
The science and business model score well. The void properties concentrate in the token and organizational governance. This is expected — crypto is structurally high-void, and solo-founder projects have inherent opacity.
Component Scores
The Site 2 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | View-source works on every page. Papers CC-BY. Methodology published. Not 0: framework complexity is inherent opacity (dissoluble — read the papers). |
| Responsiveness | 0 | Static HTML/JS/CSS. No personalization. No algorithmic feed. No behavior tracking. Cookie consent scored 2/12 vs industry 9/12. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Tools provide genuine utility. Three.js visualization is beautiful. But: no notifications, no streaks, no infinite scroll. Zero exit friction. |
| Gradient | 0 | Mechanism-revealing, not escalating. Points through to evidence and source. Counter-examples pay 2x (anti-gradient). |
Papers & Research 1 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 0 | CC-BY 4.0. Full methodology. 22 falsification conditions with numerical thresholds. Control cases published. Codebook downloadable. |
| Responsiveness | 0 | Invariant text. Papers don't change based on who reads them. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Novel frameworks capture attention — that's the productive void mechanic working correctly. Not 0 because the ideas ARE engaging. |
| Gradient | 0 | Points to evidence, not to itself. Kill conditions designed to destroy the framework if it's wrong. |
Revenue Model 3 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Methodology public. Pricing published. Certification lifecycle documented. Not 0: automated scorer internals will be proprietary (functional opacity — dissolves via BSL 1.1 after 4 years). |
| Responsiveness | 1 | Scores respond to system properties (problem-targeted). Consulting involves client responsiveness. Not observer-targeted. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Certification creates bounded engagement (annual renewal). Subscriptions recur. All engagement has designed termination. |
| Gradient | 0 | Revenue flows from scoring accuracy and trust, not from escalation. The product IS transparency. |
Organization (DAO) 4 / 12 — MODERATE
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Solo founder. Strategy docs remain private (Tier 3). But: public decision log now shows direction changes and reasoning. Open papers, published methodology, published tokenomics. Not 0: some operational details necessarily private. |
| Responsiveness | 1 | Founder responds to evidence (direction changes documented). No independent check on strategic decisions yet. Single-point governance. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Project demands significant founder attention (identity fusion risk). Governance triggers now published with measurable thresholds (roadmap). Mitigated by weekly payout cycles and designed termination. |
| Gradient | 1 | Scope creep visible (TOE extensions, 5 papers planned, agent fleet). Published kill conditions mitigate. Founder enthusiasm is itself a gradient driver. |
This is the hardest score to publish. Organizational opacity in a transparency project is a structural contradiction. We publish it because hiding it would be worse.
Token ($MORR) 7 / 12 — MODERATE-HIGH
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Tokenomics published: allocation, treasury rules, payout terms, principles, structural confirmation incentive disclosed. Treasury dashboard not yet built. Price formation inherently opaque (market microstructure). Not 0: treasury dashboard needed for real-time operational visibility. |
| Responsiveness | 2 | Price responds to market forces (structural, not designed). No gamification. No real-time earning display. But crypto markets ARE inherently responsive. |
| Engaged Attention | 3 | Crypto captures attention structurally: price charts, portfolio tracking, speculation. Anti-attention design helps (no price discussion, USDC payouts) but can't eliminate architectural properties. |
| Gradient | 1 | Anti-attention design mitigates. USDC payouts to contributors (not $MORR). No marketing spend from treasury. But token appreciation creates speculative gradient. Founder conflict of interest disclosed. |
An honest 8/12. Typical crypto scores 11/12. The mitigations bring it down, but crypto's structural void properties can't be fully eliminated without eliminating the token. We use it because research funding needs a mechanism — and we score it because pretending it's safe would be dishonest. See Crypto FAQ for why we use crypto despite the score. See the Anti-Attention Covenant for our binding commitments.
What We're Doing About It
Seven improvements. All either increase revenue potential or are revenue-neutral. None require hiding anything or compromising the framework.
1. Treasury Dashboard
On-chain glass box showing treasury balance, USDC outflows, bounty payments, operational expenses. Institutional customers need to see financial transparency before paying for scoring services.
Token opacity 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (builds enterprise trust)
2. Public Tokenomics Summary — DONE
Token facts, funding mechanics, two-leg revenue model, payout terms, six principles (output not outcomes, counter-examples equal, negative results equal, challenges 2x, anti-fabrication terminal, full transparency), structural confirmation incentive disclosed. Read tokenomics →
Token opacity 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (crypto community trust)
3. Public Decision Log — DONE
Filtered version of internal decision log. Shows what changed and why. Stripped of proprietary details. Full git history available for exact code changes. Read decision log →
Org opacity 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (governance model others adopt)
4. Independent Reviewer
One external researcher with kill-condition authority. Changes geometry from single-point to two-point. Certification customers need to trust the certifier.
Org responsiveness 1 → 0, gradient 1 → 0 | Revenue impact: Positive (certification credibility)
5. Anti-Attention Covenant — DONE
Eight binding commitments: no price discussion, no chart widgets, USDC-only treasury reporting, no marketing spend, no yield/staking, no gamification, no DeFi complexity, USDC contributor payouts. Read the covenant →
Token attention 3 → 2 | Revenue impact: Neutral (serious customers care about quality, not charts)
6. Governance Trigger Roadmap — DONE
Six measurable thresholds published: 100 unique scorers, 1 independent replication, inter-rater kappa > 0.7, 3 replications, $50K revenue, peer review acceptance. Each triggers a specific governance transition. See roadmap →
Org attention 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (enterprise trust, long-term credibility)
7. Quarterly Updates to This Page
Re-score every component. Track trajectory. Publish whether scores went up or down and why. The self-score becomes a living document, not a snapshot.
All components tracked | Revenue impact: Strong positive (the certification demo applied to ourselves)
Progress
5 of 7 improvements completed. Two remain: treasury dashboard (needs on-chain integration) and independent reviewer (needs a person).
| Component | Original | Current | Projected (all 7) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | 2 / 12 | → | 2 / 12 | → | 2 / 12 |
| Papers | 1 / 12 | → | 1 / 12 | → | 1 / 12 |
| Revenue | 3 / 12 | → | 3 / 12 | → | 3 / 12 |
| Org | 6 / 12 | → | 4 / 12 | → | 2 / 12 |
| Token | 8 / 12 | → | 7 / 12 | → | 6 / 12 |
| Composite | ~4 / 12 | → | ~3 / 12 | → | ~3 / 12 |
Composite has entered LOW range. Every improvement was revenue-positive or neutral. The token and org are still the highest-scoring components — crypto's structural properties and solo-founder governance can be mitigated but not eliminated. The remaining two improvements (treasury dashboard, independent reviewer) would drop them further.
How We Scored This
Same void index tool available to everyone. Same three conditions (opacity, responsiveness, engaged attention) on a 0–4 scale each, plus gradient direction. No special treatment. The scoring rubric is published at Methodology.
The honest limitation: we scored ourselves. That's a conflict of interest. The mitigation is publishing the reasoning for every sub-score so anyone can disagree. If you think a score is wrong, the bounty board is open.
Score Us Yourself
If your score differs from ours, that's data. Submit it to the public database.