GRASS vs TAO

GRASS scores 111 of 250 and ranks 91st of 251. TAO scores 128 and ranks 49th. TAO leads by 17 points, which is a real gap, though small enough that one variable moving would close much of it. GRASS takes 5 of the 25 variables, TAO takes 14, and 6 are level.

The framework rates GRASS WATCH and TAO CAUTIOUS HOLD. Two tokens close enough to compare do not have to land in the same band, and where they do not, the divergence table below is where the split comes from.

No single variable separates GRASS and TAO by as much as 3 points. They are close on the framework's terms, which makes price, liquidity and the supply position below the only grounds for choosing.

Both score 3 or below on Supply Inflation, Vesting Schedule, Buyback and Burn. A weakness both sides share is not a reason to prefer either. It is a reason to check whether the category itself carries the problem.

TAO still has 46% of its eventual supply to enter circulation against 30.1% for GRASS. On the same market capitalisation, a buyer of TAO is taking the 1.85x dilution path and a buyer of GRASS the 1.43x one.

TAO is valued at $3.29B against $457.9M for GRASS, a 7.2x difference. The larger of the two also scores higher, so the market and the framework agree on the ordering here.

GRASS trades 83.2% below its all-time high and TAO 61.8% below its own. Recovering the high needs 6x from GRASS and 2.6x from TAO, which is the same statement read as the return each one has to produce.

Bars read outward from the centre: GRASS to the left, TAO to the right. The side that leads a variable is filled. Each score is 1 to 10 against the same definition applied to all 251 rated tokens.