Optimism left our ranking at an unchanged 50.2
On our October 25, 2026 record, Optimism read C at 50.2 and held position 35. On our October 26, 2026 record it reads F / Failed, at the same 50.2, and it holds no ranking position.
Not one point of score movement produced that. We have written that sentence about other assets more than once this month, and every time we had to stop there, because our record did not publish a cause and we do not invent one.
This time it does.
Our record for October 26, 2026 carries a flipped screen on Optimism. Our model's "Low float + high FDV + imminent unlocks" screen reads failed for Optimism on that date, where it read passed on October 25, 2026. Our model's own change note on that row, in full: "Supplied evidence or prior assessment context changed; Gate results changed."
Three things that sentence does not say, and we want to be exact about them. It is our model's reading of the evidence our model holds, on a named date. It is not a finding of fact about Optimism, its supply schedule or the people who build it. And it is one screen: we are naming the one our record shows moving, and we are not characterising any of the others in either direction.
Our standing read on Optimism from the same October 26, 2026 record, in our record's own words: "The supplied evidence supports a credible L2 ecosystem with strong GitHub velocity and moderate TVL, but token economics remain only middling: FDV exceeds market cap meaningfully and no strong holder value-capture mechanism is shown."
Why a 50.2 can be an F at all is a two sentence answer, and two sentences is all we will spend on it here. Our bands put C at 40 to just under 60, so 50.2 sits inside the C range. 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.
What is new: our record now carries which part of the score moved
Until this comparison, the attribution field on our score changes read not-published or unavailable, and we have said so here rather than guess. On the October 25 to October 26, 2026 comparison it reads published, and for each asset that moved it names the weighted dimension that moved, the 0 to 5 score that dimension went from and to, and how many points of the total change that dimension accounts for.
That is checkable because our weights have always been public. Tokenomics and Value Accrual counts 28%, On-chain Usage and Economics 22%, Security, Decentralization and Durability 18%, Ecosystem and Moat 12%, Relative Valuation 12%, Market Structure 8%. A dimension that moves one step on the 0 to 5 scale moves the composite by one fifth of its weight. You can do that arithmetic yourself on every figure below.
We will keep saying which it is. When our record carries the cause, we will print it. When it does not, we will say that instead, as we have until now.
Litecoin gained 5.6 points, and all of it came from one dimension
Litecoin read C at 48.9 on our October 25, 2026 record, at position 39. On our October 26, 2026 record it reads C at 54.5.
Our record attributes that entire 5.6 point rise to one dimension: Tokenomics and Value Accrual, from 3 to 4 on the 0 to 5 scale. That dimension carries 28% of the weight, one step is one fifth of 28, and one fifth of 28 is 5.6. The whole move, in one line, with nothing left over.
(Litecoin and Filecoin both read 54.5 on our October 26, 2026 record, so we are not printing a position for either. A position only means something when the scores on each side of it differ.)
The move carried Litecoin past thirteen ranked assets, and our record names every one of them: Gnosis, Quickswap, Cosmos Hub, Avalanche, Zcash, Aerodrome Finance, eCash, Cardano, Dash, POL (ex-MATIC), Jupiter, Render and Sui. None of those thirteen is graded worse than it was. Litecoin moved past them.
Our standing read on Litecoin from the October 26, 2026 record: "Litecoin has clean, simple tokenomics with capped supply and no visible dilution risk, but the network shows limited organic usage and only modest protocol-maintenance activity."
Two more letters moved, each on a single dimension
Pump.fun read F at 38.8 and unranked on our October 25, 2026 record, and C / Speculative at 44.4 on October 26, 2026, which puts it back in the ranking. Same dimension as Litecoin, same size of step: Tokenomics and Value Accrual from 1 to 2, worth 5.6 points, which is the entire move. Our model's change note on that row names the same driver as the others: "Supplied evidence or prior assessment context changed." (Pump.fun and JUST both read 44.4 on that record, so neither position is printed.)
Wormhole read C at 42.8 and ranked on October 25, 2026, and F / Failed at 38.4, unranked, on October 26, 2026. Our record attributes the 4.4 point fall to On-chain Usage and Economics, from 3 to 2. That dimension carries 22% of the weight, and one fifth of 22 is 4.4. Our standing read, same date, in our record's own words: "The supplied data point to a protocol with meaningful cross-chain relevance and substantial TVL, but weak fee generation relative to market cap and no evidence of token-level cash-flow capture."
Read those three together and the point of a weighted framework gets concrete. One step on Tokenomics and Value Accrual is worth 5.6 points to any asset, which is what it was worth to Litecoin and to Pump.fun, even though one of them stayed a C and the other came back into the ranking from an F. One step on On-chain Usage and Economics is worth 4.4, which is what it cost Wormhole. The same size of step is not the same number of points. That is what a weight is, and ours are published.
The biggest name that moved stayed exactly where its letter was
Monero read B at 72.5 and position 5 on our October 25, 2026 record, and B / Sound at 74.9, position 4, on October 26, 2026. Up 2.4 points, one position, same letter.
Our record attributes the rise to Ecosystem and Moat, from 2 to 3. That dimension carries 12%, one fifth of 12 is 2.4, and again the arithmetic closes.
One asset was passed to get there, and our record names it: Compound, which reads B / Sound at 73.6 and position 5 on the October 26, 2026 record. Compound is not graded worse than it was. Monero moved past it. That is all a ranking position is, a comparison, and a comparison moves when either side does.
The honest part, which is also the useful part
Every change note on every row quoted above carries the same driver: supplied evidence or prior assessment context changed.
Read that carefully, because it matters more than any single grade in this issue. It says our model's inputs moved. It does not say the asset did. A dimension score can move because what our model was given about an asset changed, and our record is telling you that is what happened here rather than letting you assume a project shipped something or broke something.
A ratings desk that will not distinguish between "the asset changed" and "what we know about the asset changed" is not showing you its work. We would rather publish the less dramatic of the two readings and have it be the true one.
Where to look
Three letters changed between two of our records, and one of them left the ranking without its score moving at all. If you hold any of these, the lookup takes seconds: Optimism, Litecoin, Wormhole, Pump.fun and Monero.
The ask is Alerts, at cryptograde.ai/alerts. It is free with a free CryptoGrade account, and it exists for exactly the event this issue is about: our grade on an asset changing. Optimism's letter moved with no score movement to warn anyone watching the number. If you do not have an account yet, you can create a free one here.
Last week's issue, if you missed it: BNB left our ranking this week.
All grades, tier names, scores, positions, dimension moves and screen results above are CryptoGrade's own published readings from our research record on the mornings of October 25 and October 26, 2026, and they change.
