On our October 26, 2026 research record, Bitcoin Cash read C at 56.2 and held position 21. On our October 27, 2026 record it reads B / Sound at 61.8 and holds position 15.

That is a letter change, and it is the first one in our record for this asset. Our record holds 115 dated rows for Bitcoin Cash, running from June 23, 2026 to October 27, 2026. On 114 of them the grade reads C. The October 27, 2026 row is the only one that reads B.

Our score change record for October 26 to October 27, 2026 attributes the whole 5.6 point rise to a single weighted dimension:

Tokenomics and Value Accrual, from 4 to 5 on the 0 to 5 scale, worth 5.6 points of a 5.6 point move.

Our model's change note on that row, quoted as our record writes it: "tokenomics: 4→5; Supplied evidence or prior assessment context changed." No other dimension on Bitcoin Cash moved between those two records.

This is checkable arithmetic, not a claim you have to take from us, because our weights are published and always have been:

Each dimension is scored 0 to 5. One step on a dimension therefore moves the composite by one fifth of that dimension's weight. One fifth of 28 is 5.6, which is what a single step on Tokenomics and Value Accrual is worth to any asset we rate.

Our bands put B at 60 and above, up to just under 80, and C at 40 up to just under 60. Bitcoin Cash sat at 56.2, which is 3.8 points under the B line. A 5.6 point step cleared it with 1.8 to spare. One dimension, one step, one letter.

One caveat belongs next to that, because the bands are not the whole story. Our framework also runs pass or fail disqualifier screens on top of the weighted score, and a failed screen places an asset in F at any score, including a score in the A band. A band tells you where a number sits. It does not tell you that the number is the only thing deciding the letter.

Our record names the driver on that row as our input data. Read plainly: what our model was given about Bitcoin Cash changed, and the dimension score moved with it.

That is a different sentence from "Bitcoin Cash changed," and we are not going to blur the two. We did not observe a protocol upgrade, a supply event or a governance decision and grade it. Our evidence on one dimension moved, our model rescored, and the letter followed. A ratings desk that will not separate "the asset changed" from "what we hold on the asset changed" is not showing its work.

The change note is also honest about its own limits, and so are we: it names which dimension moved and that the supplied evidence or prior assessment context changed. It does not give a reason particular to this project, and we are not going to invent one to fill the gap.

From our October 27, 2026 record: "Bitcoin Cash is a proof-of-work blockchain created through a hard fork of Bitcoin in 2017. Its defining protocol change was a larger block-size limit, intended to accommodate more payments per block and reduce transaction costs and confirmation friction. BCH is the network's digital currency, used for peer-to-peer payments and transfers. It follows a capped monetary design and a development approach based on hard-fork protocol upgrades rather than SegWit. A 2018 chain split produced Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC, illustrating the project's history of protocol disagreement."

This is where our model stands on the asset. It is not the cause of the move above, and we are not presenting it as one.

"BCH's strongest evidence remains token supply integrity: fixed max supply, near-full circulation, and no visible dilution overhang in the supplied data. Offsetting that, usage signals are modest, ecosystem depth appears thin, and the moat versus larger smart-contract and payments competitors remains limited. Security and maintenance look functional, but the evidence does not support a stronger growth or fee-accumulation profile. Overall, BCH reads as a mature but low-conviction network asset rather than a high-throughput, high-momentum platform."

Two of the six dimension rationales, verbatim from the same record, because they are the two that carry this letter:

Tokenomics and Value Accrual, scored 5 of 5. "BCH has fixed 21M max supply, near-full circulation (~20.1M of 21M), and no disclosed FDV-overhang in the supplied data. As a base-layer asset, value accrual is not fee-capture based, but supply dilution risk is low and transparent."

Ecosystem and Moat, scored 1 of 5. "BCH shows limited ecosystem depth in the supplied evidence: no strong DeFi, developer, or application network effects are shown, and the protocol appears more of a payments/spend asset than a broad developer platform. Competitive moat versus larger ecosystems remains weak."

A B grade is not a clean sweep, and our record does not pretend otherwise. The six dimension scores on our October 27, 2026 record read:

Run those six through the weights and you get 61.8, which is the published composite. The strongest dimension carries the heaviest weight, and the weakest dimension carries one of the lightest. That is the whole of why this asset is a B rather than a C, and it is also why the letter was always going to be sensitive to one step on tokenomics.

Position 15 on our October 27, 2026 record, up from position 21 on October 26. Our record names the ranked assets it moved past, with their positions on both records: Raydium, from 16 to 17; yearn.finance, from 19 to 20; and Ethereum Name Service, from 20 to 21. None of those three changed letter or score between the two records. They are lower than Bitcoin Cash now because Bitcoin Cash moved, which is all a ranking position ever is: a comparison, and a comparison moves when either side does.

One asset on that stretch of the ranking did move on its own account, in the opposite direction. Kamino read B at 61.2 on our October 26, 2026 record and reads C / Speculative at 58.8 on October 27. On the same pair of records, one asset crossed up into B and another crossed down out of it. We are not printing positions for Kamino: its score was tied with another ranked asset on the October 26 record, and a position only means something when the scores on each side of it differ.

For the same reason we are not printing positions for any other tied pair on these records. Where two assets we rate hold the same score, which one is listed first is an artifact, not a finding.

Our model publishes a grade-level position cap, and for a B grade asset it reads no more than 10% on our October 27, 2026 record (verbatim field value: ≤10%). That is an impersonal statement of what our model applies to any asset at that grade. It is not computed from anyone's holdings, goals or circumstances, and it is not addressed to any individual.

Bitcoin Cash: https://cryptograde.ai/tokens/bitcoin-cash

If you want to be told when a letter like this one moves, that is what CryptoGrade Alerts is for. It is free with a free CryptoGrade account, and the event it exists for is exactly the one in this piece: our grade on an asset changing. Bitcoin Cash held the same letter on 114 dated rows before this one, which is the kind of change nobody watching casually would catch. If you do not have an account yet, you can create a free one here.

All grades, tier names, scores, positions, dimension scores, weights and attribution above are CryptoGrade's own published readings from our research record on the mornings of October 26 and October 27, 2026, and they change.