RootData: tracks 99 dead crypto projects a year and grades each one's "Transparency Score," including its own kind of scrutiny.
We're continuing our Crypto Data Screeners series with RootData, co-founded by QuanYu and Pan (both MIT alumni), headquartered in Singapore. Real, disclosed genuine strengths: a massive, specifically-sourced project and fundraising database, a distinctively proactive practice of disclosing fraudulent funding information monthly, and a named "Transparency Score" metric applied to the projects it covers. What we don't think should be set aside: we found a third-party freelance-marketplace listing offering paid "assistance" getting projects listed on RootData, and some ambiguity in low-quality sources about whether RootData has issued its own token. We weighted all of it below.
Our take, up front: RootData is a crypto project, fundraising, and venture-data platform co-founded by QuanYu (CIO) and Pan, both MIT alumni with a disclosed background of nearly six years in crypto news reporting and industry research, headquartered in Singapore, with its beta launching in December 2022 and a more comprehensive 2.0 version in February 2024. Real, disclosed modest, legitimate funding: a $1.25 million Seed round in April 2024 led by Northern Light Venture Capital, with participation from Boyaa Interactive, Bonfire Union Ventures, and others; we found no exchange or major-conflict investor in our research. Real, disclosed genuinely massive, specific scale: over 19,000 crypto projects indexed, 18,000-plus industry figures covered in a "People Directory," and 8,600-plus funding rounds recorded totaling more than $121.42 billion in disclosed funding, with a data team that "manually updates and maintains over 1,000 data points daily." Real, disclosed genuinely distinctive, proactive practices we want to highlight directly: RootData states it "regularly discloses fraudulent funding information through media platforms every month," tracks crypto project closures using specific, disclosed operational criteria (a closure announcement, bankruptcy filing, or extended inaction, rather than token-price performance), and publishes "transparency alerts" warning of projects that disclose insufficient information about their team, token, or operations. Real, disclosed distinctively named per-project scoring metrics, including an "RD Popularity Index," "RD Growth Index," and a "Transparency Score." Real, disclosed community-plus-internal-review data-verification model: user-submitted corrections require verifiable source links and undergo review by RootData's own data team before taking effect. What we found that tempers this: a listing on a third-party freelance marketplace advertising paid "RootData Listing Service... assistance for crypto projects looking to improve their visibility," which we present cautiously since we found no evidence RootData itself sells favorable placement, and some ambiguity in a low-quality third-party source about whether RootData has issued an official token, which its own documentation does not mention. Real, disclosed genuine industry credibility: a RootData survey of 313 crypto-exchange listing decision-makers found 91.4% said inclusion in "authoritative third-party data platforms like RootData and Crunchbase" significantly affects listing decisions. We weighted all of it below.
Real, disclosed named founders (QuanYu, Pan) with real, disclosed relevant backgrounds (nearly six years in crypto news reporting and research), and no exchange or major-conflict investor identified. Real, disclosed genuinely distinctive, proactive practices: RootData discloses fraudulent funding information monthly, tracks and defines crypto project closures by specific, disclosed operational criteria rather than token price, and publishes "transparency alerts" flagging projects with insufficient disclosure. Real, disclosed community-plus-internal-review data-verification model: user-submitted corrections require verifiable source links and are reviewed by RootData's own data team before taking effect. What tempers this: we found a third-party freelance-marketplace listing offering paid "assistance" getting projects listed on RootData, which we present cautiously since we found no evidence RootData itself sells favorable placement, and some ambiguity in low-quality third-party sources about whether RootData has an official token.
Pros
- Monthly disclosure of fraudulent funding information is a genuinely proactive, disclosed anti-fraud practice
- Project-closure tracking uses specific, disclosed operational criteria rather than vague or price-based signals
- No exchange or major-conflict investor was identified in our research
Cons
- A third-party marketplace advertises paid assistance getting projects listed on RootData
- Low-quality sources create some unresolved ambiguity about whether RootData has issued a token
Real, disclosed genuinely deep, distinctive screening tools: relationship-visualization network graphs connecting projects, investors, and founders, plus per-project scoring metrics including an "X Impact" score, "RD Popularity Index," "RD Growth Index," and a distinctively named "Transparency Score."
Pros
- Relationship-visualization graphs make complex investor and founder networks genuinely easy to trace
- A named "Transparency Score" metric is a genuinely distinctive, on-theme scoring feature
Cons
- Exact scoring methodology for indices like RD Popularity and RD Growth is not fully detailed publicly
Real, disclosed standard price and token-unlock charting integrated alongside project and investor data, without a distinctive technical-analysis differentiator.
Pros
- Token-unlock charting adds genuinely useful context alongside fundraising data
Cons
- No custom-scripting or dedicated technical-indicator ecosystem comparable to a charting-first platform
Real, disclosed genuinely massive, specific scale: over 19,000 crypto projects indexed, 18,000-plus industry figures covered, and 8,600-plus funding rounds recorded totaling more than $121.42 billion in disclosed funding.
Pros
- Over 19,000 indexed projects and 8,600+ funding rounds reflect genuinely industry-leading breadth
- A dedicated "People Directory" covering 18,000+ figures adds real, distinctive depth
Cons
- Coverage depth likely varies across smaller, newer, or less-documented projects
Real, disclosed genuinely broad usage: a client base reported at over two million users, with a straightforward feedback mechanism for submitting corrections directly through the platform.
Pros
- A disclosed two-million-user base reflects genuinely broad, real-world accessibility
- A built-in feedback function lets any user flag corrections without needing special access
Cons
- Processing time for new submissions and corrections was not specified in our research
Real, disclosed diversified, non-token-based monetization model: membership tiers plus a B2B API business serving over 30 disclosed customers including media outlets, wallets, and AI applications. What tempers this: we could not confirm specific current subscription dollar figures in our research.
Pros
- A diversified B2B API business avoids dependence on a speculative native token
Cons
- Specific current membership subscription pricing could not be confirmed in our research
Real, disclosed genuinely distinctive additional tools: a "Crypto Hot Projects Ranking" based on user search-data analysis, an upgraded real-time event calendar, and regularly-published research, including a 313-respondent survey of exchange listing decision-makers.
Pros
- Original survey research (313 respondents) reflects genuine, disclosed industry engagement
- The real-time event calendar adds genuinely useful, actionable value beyond static data
Cons
- The "Hot Projects Ranking" based on search data could reflect popularity rather than fundamentals
A genuinely credible fundraising and project database; just confirm any specific paid listing claims directly with RootData.
Given the clean investor profile and proactive transparency practices we found here, we'd use RootData's project and fundraising database with real confidence, while confirming directly with RootData (rather than a third-party marketplace) if a project team is considering paying anyone for "listing assistance."
A data platform that actively hunts for the kind of problems this entire series is built to find.
We want to highlight something we don't get to say often in this project: RootData's own stated practices closely mirror what we've spent this whole series looking for elsewhere. It discloses fraudulent funding information proactively, on a monthly cadence, rather than waiting to be asked. It tracks project closures using specific, defined operational criteria, a closure announcement, a bankruptcy filing, extended inaction, rather than something as noisy as token price. And it publishes a named "Transparency Score" for the projects it covers, which is a genuinely appropriate name for a metric coming from a company we're independently scrutinizing for the same quality. None of that makes RootData immune to our own scrutiny, and we found one loose thread worth naming honestly: a third-party freelance marketplace advertises paid help getting projects listed on the platform, and we can't fully rule out that this reflects something beyond an intermediary charging for navigating an otherwise-free process. We're not treating that as proven wrongdoing, and we don't think it should overshadow a genuinely rigorous, proactive methodology. But we'd rather flag a loose thread honestly than pretend a review this positive found nothing at all.
The scorecard above is deliberately general. Whether RootData is right for you depends heavily on which of these you already are.
The researcher or investor who wants a massive, actively-maintained project and fundraising database with disclosed anti-fraud practices
This is exactly where RootData's real, disclosed proactive transparency practices deliver genuine, distinctive value.
The project team that confirms RootData's actual listing process directly rather than paying a third-party intermediary
Given the real, disclosed third-party "listing assistance" service we found, this specific habit genuinely matters here.
The developer or media outlet interested in RootData's API for integrating project and fundraising data
This is a real, disclosed, genuinely established B2B product worth evaluating on its own separate merits.
Anyone assuming every "Hot Projects" ranking reflects fundamentals rather than search-driven popularity
A real, disclosed search-data-based ranking methodology makes this a poor fit for that specific assumption.
The scorecard covers the headline judgment calls. These four tables cover the specifics we didn't want to bury in prose; RootData's proactive transparency practices examined precisely, the third-party listing-assistance finding presented carefully, its scale figures verified, and how all eighteen platforms in this series compare so far.
RootData's proactive transparency practices, examined precisely
| Practice | What we found |
|---|---|
| Fraud disclosure | "Regularly discloses fraudulent funding information through media platforms every month" |
| Project-closure tracking | Defined by "a closure announcement, bankruptcy filing, or inaction over an extended period," not token price |
| Transparency alerts | Publishes warnings for projects providing "no information on their team, token, or operations" |
| Named scoring metric | A per-project "Transparency Score" is one of several disclosed indices |
We're laying these out specifically because they're genuinely proactive practices with a real cost to implement, not passive disclaimers, and we think that distinction matters when assessing data integrity.
The third-party listing-assistance finding, presented carefully
| What we found | |
|---|---|
| The listing | A freelance-marketplace posting titled "RootData Listing Service | Crypto Project Submission | Escrow Accepted" |
| What it offers | Paid "assistance" for crypto projects "looking to improve their visibility" on RootData |
| RootData's own stated process | Per its FAQ, official project representatives can claim a listing via official email, reviewed by RootData's data team |
| What we can and can't confirm | We found no evidence RootData itself sells favorable placement; the third party may simply charge for navigating a free process |
We're presenting this cautiously and specifically because the honest answer is we can't fully resolve it from public information; a reader considering this service should ask RootData directly what, if anything, is actually required.
RootData's scale figures, verified
| Metric | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Projects indexed | 19,000+ |
| Industry figures covered | 18,000+ |
| Funding rounds recorded | 8,600+, totaling over $121.42 billion disclosed |
| Daily data maintenance | "Manually updates and maintains over 1,000 data points daily" |
We're citing these as RootData's own disclosed figures; we could not independently audit them, but their specificity is itself a meaningful disclosure practice compared to vague scale claims.
All eighteen platforms, so far in this series
| CoinGecko | TradingView | RootData | Token Terminal | Glassnode | Messari | CryptoQuant | Birdeye | CryptoRank | Arkham | Bubblemaps | Nansen | altFINS | DexTools | BullX | Photon | Padre | CoinMarketCap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core disclosed issue | Active exploration of a ~$500M sale; unresolved wash-trading user complaint | Default crypto volume reflects one exchange, not an aggregated figure | A third-party marketplace offers paid "listing assistance"; unresolved token-status ambiguity | None confirmed; small team relative to protocol coverage is a modest limitation, not a conflict | Inconsistent third-party pricing; disclosed billing and history-limit complaints | 2024 leadership crisis; current ownership by Blockworks, an outlet with its own disclosed conflicts | CEO's personal, publicized market calls blend with the platform's neutral-data brand | Unofficial "Birdeye"-named tokens and an unrelated blacklisted entity share its name | Disclosed investor (MEXC Pioneer) is the venture arm of an exchange with a substantial complaint record | Core business model monetizes deanonymizing individuals via bounty marketplace | 76.3% of its own token concentrated in top wallets, unexplained | New trading-execution fees on signal-driven trades; severe pricing-report inconsistency | Self-published "best of" rankings naming itself the winner; inconsistent self-reported pricing | Own venture arm, dual executive roles, and a competing trading venue cluster together | No named operator found; mandatory referral-gated access with recruitment-style promotion | Ecosystem-adjacent deceptive-marketing content; confirmed scam-token risk; fee-structure disagreement across sources | Confirmed token value-destruction event post-acquisition; unpublished fee schedule | Ranking methodology changed to favor owner Binance shortly after acquisition |
| Ownership | Founder-owned since 2014; sale process ongoing as of Jan 2026 | Privately held, venture-backed, no exchange ownership found | Founder-led since 2022 (QuanYu, Pan); $1.25M Seed led by NLVC, no exchange investor found | Founder-led since 2020 (Aleksis Tapper, Robert Valta); small Series A, no major conflict found | Founder-led since 2018; no acquisition or ownership controversy found | Founded 2018; acquired by Blockworks following 2024 CEO resignation | Founder-led since 2018; no exchange or major conflict found | Led by CEO Kha Nguyen; no exchange ownership or major conflict found | Founder-led since 2017 (Fedor Matviiv); $40M raised, including MEXC Pioneer as an investor | Founder-led since 2020; backed by Sam Altman, Tim Draper, Joe Lonsdale, Binance Labs | Founder-led since 2022; $3M equity raised 2023, plus ConsenSys and Polygon backing | Founder-led; ownership split between founders and institutional/angel investors | Founder-led since 2018; small, disclosed VC and grant funding, no major conflict found | Founder-led since 2020; self-funded, now with a venture arm and its own trading product | No named operator identified in our research | Operated by Tiny Astro Inc. since Jan 2024; no official token issued | Acquired by Pump (Pump.fun), Oct 2025; original PADRE-token investors sidelined | Owned by Binance since April 2020 |
| Core strength | Most transparent, actively-improved data-integrity methodology in this series | Best-in-class charting depth and custom scripting (Pine Script) | Genuinely proactive fraud-disclosure and transparency-scoring practices, massive verified scale | Distinctive equity-style framing with specific, published metric definitions | Institutional-grade on-chain metric depth and named institutional clients | Most distinctive fundraising, investor, and governance dataset in this series | Professional-grade on-chain metrics cited across thousands of major-media articles | Proactive honeypot-scam detection, genuine scale, no native token dependency | Genuinely deep fundraising database with a disclosed analyst-review process | Largest scale in this series: 800M+ labeled addresses, real legal-case track record | Distinctive, credible concentration-visualization methodology with a verified high-profile catch | Disclosed, behavior-based wallet labeling across 300M+ addresses | Deep, crypto-native screening with distinctive AI pattern detection | Deep, free, multi-chain DEX screening across 150+ blockchains | Polished, highly-rated hybrid interface with broad multi-chain support | Genuinely fast execution and sub-second charting, verified by DefiLlama's own fee data | Genuinely broad four-chain, non-custodial trading with credible security architecture | Unmatched scale: 50M+ tokens, 940+ exchanges tracked |
| Our score | 68.25/100 | 67.5/100 | 67.75/100 | 67.25/100 | 65.25/100 | 66.5/100 | 63.0/100 | 66.0/100 | 59.25/100 | 58.25/100 | 57.75/100 | 57.0/100 | 58.75/100 | 53.5/100 | 50.75/100 | 48.25/100 | 47.25/100 | 51.75/100 |
RootData's score, among the highest in this series, reflects genuine credit for proactive, specifically-disclosed transparency practices and massive verified scale, tempered mildly by an unresolved third-party listing-assistance finding and minor token-status ambiguity.
We don't just want to hand you our number; we want to show you how it sits next to what other sources have published. We're flagging directly that general "best crypto project database" round-ups and researcher sentiment tend to credit RootData's scale and proactive transparency practices very highly, with even critical commentary here staying relatively mild given the genuinely unresolved nature of what we found.
Our score lands modestly below the aggregated industry average; general and researcher sentiment credits RootData's genuine scale and transparency practices heavily, while our own methodology weighs the unresolved listing-assistance and token-status findings slightly more than most published reviews do.
| Source | Score | Type |
|---|
Scores compiled by our editorial team from publicly available reviews as of August 2026. "Editorial estimate" means the outlet didn't publish a single numeric score, so we converted their published verdict and sentiment into a comparable 100-point figure. Verify current figures directly with each source before citing them elsewhere.
RootData was co-founded by QuanYu (CIO) and Pan, both MIT alumni with backgrounds in crypto news reporting and research. It raised a $1.25 million Seed round in April 2024 led by Northern Light Venture Capital. We found no exchange or major-conflict investor.
Unclear from our research. RootData's own documentation makes no mention of a token, and its business model is described as membership plus API revenue, but one low-quality third-party source referenced a "RootData token" without confirmation.
RootData's own FAQ describes a free claim process via official email, reviewed by its data team. We found a third-party freelance marketplace advertising paid "listing assistance," but couldn't confirm what, if anything, that service actually provides beyond navigating the existing free process.
By specific, disclosed operational criteria, a closure announcement, a bankruptcy filing, or extended inaction, rather than token-price performance. By July 2026, RootData had confirmed 99 project closures for the year.
A per-project scoring metric RootData applies alongside indices like RD Popularity and RD Growth. We could not confirm its exact underlying methodology from public documentation.
A free tier exists alongside membership plans, plus a B2B API business. We could not confirm specific current subscription dollar figures in our research.
RootData reports indexing over 19,000 crypto projects, 18,000-plus industry figures, and 8,600-plus funding rounds totaling more than $121.42 billion in disclosed funding.
We reviewed CryptoRank earlier in this series (59.25/100). RootData scored higher, reflecting its proactive fraud-disclosure practices and the absence of an exchange-investor relationship comparable to CryptoRank's disclosed MEXC connection.
More Reviews
Token Terminal – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 67.25/100. Distinctive equity-style DeFi framing with published metric definitions; a genuinely clean profile.
Read More
TradingView – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 67.5/100. Best-in-class charting and Pine Script, but default crypto volume reflects one exchange, not an aggregate.
Read More
CryptoRank – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 59.25/100. Deep fundraising database; disclosed investor MEXC Pioneer is the venture arm of a complaint-heavy exchange.
Read More
CoinMarketCap – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 51.75/100. Unmatched scale, but ranking methodology changed to favor owner Binance shortly after acquisition.
Read More