CROPS Inspector

Score your own project →

CROPS-Native Distribution

Breakdown by gap severity across all 56 use cases.

?Privacy is missing from nearly every use case, which dominates the overall picture. This view shows what the ecosystem would look like if privacy gaps were closed, to help prioritize non-privacy work. All four properties remain required.
Nothing exists Weak options only Needs adoption Fully covered

Ecosystem Coverage

Best available coverage per use case, combining all projects.

?Privacy is missing from nearly every use case, which dominates the overall picture. Excluding it lets you see how Censorship Resistance, Open Source, and Security compare on their own.
Nothing exists Weak options only Needs adoption Fully covered

Coverage by Property

Nothing exists Weak options only Needs adoption Fully covered

Gaps by Category

Each category has 8 subcategories, each assessed on 4 properties (C, O, P, S). The bar shows how many of those assessments are healthy (green) vs. missing (red/orange/amber). Categories with the most problems are at the top. Click a category to jump to its detail.

Nothing exists Weak options only Needs adoption Fully covered
?Privacy is missing from nearly every use case, which dominates the overall picture. Excluding it lets you see how Censorship Resistance, Open Source, and Security compare on their own.

Top 10 CROPS Gaps by Use Case

The 10 use cases with the most CROPS failures, ranked worst first. Each card shows all four property scores and what needs to be built or fixed.

Nothing exists Weak options only Needs adoption Fully covered
?Privacy is missing from nearly every use case, which dominates the overall picture. Excluding it lets you see how Censorship Resistance, Open Source, and Security compare on their own.

Coverage Heatmap

Each cell shows whether the Ethereum ecosystem has a viable option satisfying that CROPS property for the given use case.

Nothing exists Weak options only Needs adoption Fully covered
?Privacy is missing from nearly every use case, which dominates the overall picture. Excluding it lets you see how Censorship Resistance, Open Source, and Security compare on their own.
Methodology

The Indivisible Whole

The EF Mandate v2.0 treats Censorship Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security as an indivisible whole. A tool that passes three but fails one has not delivered on Ethereum's promise. If your wallet is open source, censorship-resistant, and secure but broadcasts every transaction to the world, users are still exposed.

The CROPS-Native metric at the top of this page reflects that principle: it asks whether any single project passes all four properties for a given use case. For most use cases, the answer is no.

The per-property heatmap below scores each property separately, and each column can be a different project. A green cell for Open Source and a green cell for Censorship Resistance might come from two completely different tools. Three green cells and one red cell means the ecosystem has at least one option for each of those three properties somewhere, but nothing at all for the fourth. It does not mean any single project is close to passing all four.

CROPS Properties

  • Censorship Resistance (CR): Can the protocol function without any single entity being able to freeze, block, or exclude users? Admin keys, geographic blocking, monopolistic control over critical infrastructure, and dependency on censorable services all degrade this property.
  • Open Source (O): Is the project released under an OSI-approved license? Business Source License (BSL) is an automatic failure. Proprietary frontends with open contracts score Weak.
  • Privacy (P): Does the protocol provide privacy at the protocol level by default? Optional privacy features or application-layer wrappers are insufficient. On a transparent chain like Ethereum, most activity is fully public.
  • Security (S): Can the protocol survive the disappearance of its founding team? Governance overrides, unaudited code, and admin-upgradable proxies all weaken security. Multiple audits are necessary but not sufficient if governance can override them. Excessive reliance on external services expands the attack surface.

Coverage Levels (Diagnostic)

To show where the gaps are, each property (CR, O, P, S) is scored independently per subcategory. "Fully covered" for Censorship Resistance means at least one project passes CR at scale. "Fully covered" for Open Source means at least one project passes O at scale. These may be different projects. A subcategory can show green across all four columns even if no single project passes all four properties at once. The heatmap answers "does the ecosystem have any option for this property?" not "is there one project that does everything?" For that question, see the CROPS-Native metric above.

  • Fully covered: At least one project passes this property with Medium or Dominant adoption.
  • Needs adoption: A passing project exists but only at Niche or Minimal adoption.
  • Weak options only: No project passes; the best available is Weak.
  • Nothing exists: All assessed projects fail this property outright.

Gap Type Derivation

  • Nothing exists: At least one CROPS property has Nothing exists. No tool even attempts to satisfy it.
  • Weak options only: No Nothing exists, but at least one property is Weak options only.
  • Needs adoption: All properties are Needs adoption or better. Solutions exist but need wider adoption.
  • Fully covered: All four properties are Fully covered at scale.

Numerical Scores (0 to 10)

Each use case gets a numerical score per CROPS property. The score combines two inputs: the best project grade for that property (Pass, Weak, or Fail) and that project's adoption level (Dominant, Medium, Niche, or Minimal). The highest-scoring project wins.

Grade Adoption Score
PassDominant10.0
PassMedium8.0
PassNiche5.0
PassMinimal3.5
WeakDominant3.0
WeakMedium2.0
WeakNiche1.5
WeakMinimal1.0
FailAny0.0

The aggregate score shown on each use case card is the average of all four property scores. It is a diagnostic shorthand for ranking gaps by severity, not a measure of how "close" a use case is to satisfying the mandate. A score of 7.5 with one property at zero still means no single tool delivers on Ethereum's promise. The "if privacy were solved" view averages only CR, O, and S to help prioritize non-privacy work.

Scope

This analysis covers 56 subcategories across 7 categories of Ethereum ecosystem activity. Each subcategory was assessed by examining the leading projects and their CROPS properties. Individual project scores are not shown here; this page presents only the aggregate coverage picture.

Based on the Ethereum Foundation Mandate v2.0.