2026 Report on Investor Relations and Token Transparency in the Cryptocurrency Industry

Author: Connor King, Founder of Novora

Compiled by: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

Last month, we released "Is Investor Relations Important in the Cryptocurrency Space," which is a follow-up report. We expanded the initial dataset of 53 protocols to over 150 protocols, covering all major sectors: DEX, lending, perpetual contracts, liquid staking, L1, L2, bridges, DePIN, AI, stablecoins, infrastructure, and CEX tokens. The fully diluted valuation (FDV) of the protocols ranges from $40 million to $4.5 billion.

We examined 15 binary, verifiable metrics for each protocol: Does the protocol disclose this information? Yes/No. Each data point was cross-verified through public sources: Artemis, Tokenterminal, Blockworks, Dune, DefiLlama.

We found the following:

Less than 1% disclose market maker terms.

50 protocols. Daily trading volume totals in the billions of dollars. But only one protocol publicly disclosed information about its market-making arrangements.

Market makers set the terms for token trading. These arrangements often include token lending, options structures, and performance incentives, all of which directly affect price discovery. In traditional markets, such important agreements are disclosed. However, in the cryptocurrency market, every market participant trades under conditions of information opacity.

Meteora is the only protocol that disclosed its market-making arrangements through its 2025 token holders' annual report. Only one out of over 150 protocols.

This represents the most significant transparency gap in the industry.

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

Almost all protocols in this audit publicly provided revenue data through third-party platforms or their own dashboards. The raw data exists.

However, only 3% of companies have established dedicated investor relations centers that integrate this data into an investor-facing experience. Exceptional protocols 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 lies not in the availability of data, but in the communication infrastructure.

9% submitted to Blockworks TTF

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

This is a substantial improvement from zero submissions. However, the submission rate dropped from 25% when there were only 53 protocols to 9% with over 150. The original dataset favored early adopters of the TTF in DeFi protocols. After expanding the sample, the situation became clearer: the vast majority of protocols in the market did not choose to participate. Zero L1, zero L2, and zero infrastructure protocols submitted to the framework. The framework exists, and more protocols should utilize it.

38% have active value capture, 62% return nothing

We define "active value capture" broadly: Does the protocol have at least one operating mechanism that directs economic value directly to token holders (excluding governance rights)? Among the 150+ protocols, we identified six different models:

• Direct fee distribution (JUP, DYDX, GMX)
• Buyback and burn (HYPE, RAY, MET)
• Staking income sharing (PENDLE, AAVE, ETHFI)
• Conditional buyback (LDO)
• ve model periodic distribution (AERO)
• Governance only, no economic rights (MORPHO, LINK, ARB)

62% of protocols fall into the last category—governance-only tokens with no value capture, including some of the largest market cap projects in the industry. The differences across sectors are stark: 62% of perpetual contract protocols have active value capture, while only 12% of L1/L2 tokens do. The perpetual contract sector views aligning token holder interests as a competitive advantage, while L1 foundations have yet to achieve this. We will release an in-depth analysis of which models are truly effective next week.

The data layer is built, but 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 dataset. 72% of protocols appear on four or more platforms simultaneously. Every protocol in the audit appears on at least one platform. The raw data infrastructure for institutional analysis is essentially in place. What is missing is the interpretation, packaging, and communication layer that transforms data into investable narratives.

The complete disclosure status of 150+ protocols is as follows:

\<1% ------ Disclose market maker terms
3% ------ Dedicated IR center
3% ------ Provide OnePage overview
5% ------ Dedicated investor channel
7% ------ Publish single token metrics
8% ------ Token holder reports
9% ------ Submit TTF
15% ------ Disclose exchange listing information
18% ------ Quarterly updates
35% ------ Revenue item disclosure
38% ------ Active value capture
88% ------ Disclose circulation
91% ------ Revenue data available

What this means

The argument in "Is Investor Relations Important in the Crypto Space?" still holds. With the sample size expanded to over 150, the data is even more alarming. Crypto protocols are not hiding fundamentals; they simply fail to present them. There is already raw input for fundamental analysis on-chain and on third-party platforms, but the "translation layer" and IR infrastructure that convert data into institutional confidence are nearly nonexistent. Only 3% have IR centers, \<1% disclose market maker terms, and 91% of the market have yet to adopt the only available standardized disclosure framework.

The opportunity for protocols is very clear: the cost of building IR infrastructure is trivial compared to the returns from capital markets. Protocols that invest in this now will gain the trust of institutional allocators first. A complete interactive report covering all 150+ protocols is now live:
http://novora.co/research/ir-transparency-2026.html

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