Self-Score
MoreRight scored against its own framework. Same tool. Same criteria. No exceptions.
Last updated: March 2026 — next quarterly review: June 2026
Why This Page Exists
A rating agency that doesn't rate itself has a credibility problem. S&P publishes their methodology. We go further: we apply the full diagnostic to every component of this project, publish the scores, identify where we're weak, and track improvement over time.
If you're considering trusting our scores on other systems, start here. If we can't score ourselves honestly, nothing else matters.
Composite Score
| Component | Score | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Site (moreright.xyz) | 2 / 12 | LOW |
| Papers & Research | 1 / 12 | LOW |
| Revenue Model (Rating Agency) | 3 / 12 | LOW |
| Organization (DAO / Governance) | 3 / 12 | LOW |
| Token ($MORR / $ATH) | 7 / 12 | MODERATE |
| Game (Private Alpha) | 6 / 12 | MODERATE |
| WishWell Oracle | 3 / 12 | LOW |
| Weighted Composite | ~3 / 12 | LOW |
The science and business model score well. The void properties concentrate in the token and organizational governance. This is expected — crypto is structurally high-void, and solo-founder projects have inherent opacity.
Péclet Number: Pe < 0
The void index (0–12) measures structure. The Péclet number measures direction: positive Pe = attention capture (attractive void); negative Pe = attention repulsion (exit-facilitating). This is the thermodynamic test.
Pe formula (Paper 3, §4.2):
Pe = K · sinh(2·(b_α − c·b_γ)) c = 1 − (O + R + α) / 9 b_α = 0.867 (engagement coupling constant) b_γ = 2.244 (constraint maintenance constant) K = substrate-specific scaling
| Component | O | R | α | V | c | Pe (K=16) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Papers & Methodology | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.889 | −77 | Repulsive |
| Site (moreright.xyz) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.778 | −46 | Repulsive |
| Revenue Model | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.667 | −25 | Repulsive |
| Organization (DAO) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.778 | −46 | Repulsive |
| Token ($MORR / $ATH) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0.333 | +4 | Weakly attractive |
| Game (Private Alpha) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0.333 | +4 | Weakly attractive |
| WishWell Oracle | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.667 | −24 | Repulsive |
The science, site, oracle, and business model score Pe < 0. The constraint maintenance term (b_γ·c) dominates the engagement term (b_α) in every component except the token and game. The honest vulnerabilities: crypto's structural α=3 keeps tokens at Pe≈+4. The game (Pe≈+4) is genuinely engaging — that's the mechanism working — but Pe=4 sits below the vortex onset threshold (Pe=13 for D2, Pe=21 for Pandemonium). Engaging ≠ capturing.
Reference benchmark: A maximum-constraint architecture (fixed canonical text, O=0, R=0, α=0) yields Pe≈−121 at K=16. Gambling (O=3, R=3, α=3) yields Pe≈+176. This project's core is structurally closer to the maximum-constraint end than to neutral.
The self-referential constraint architecture (IKC-1 through IKC-6, threat-response tiers, Pe_self as public falsification target) is formalized in Paper 54 — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18764742.
Falsification conditions for Pe < 0 claim:
- If measured α for Papers component > 2 (compulsive return, exit friction documented) → Pe turns positive → self-score fails.
- If kill conditions are never triggered despite documented errors → R score for Papers rises to 1 → Pe moves toward zero.
- If user behavioral data shows session depth > 45 min median for methodology pages → α rises to 2 → recompute required.
- If a third-party scorer submits Papers score ≥ 4/9 (O+R+α) to the community database and survives review → self-score must update.
Think we scored wrong? See the kill conditions — the data decides.
Component Scores
The Site 2 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | View-source works on every page. Papers CC-BY. Methodology published. Not 0: framework complexity is inherent opacity (dissoluble — read the papers). |
| Responsiveness | 0 | Static HTML/JS/CSS. No personalization. No algorithmic feed. No behavior tracking. Cookie consent scored 2/12 vs industry 9/12. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Tools provide genuine utility. Three.js visualization is beautiful. But: no notifications, no streaks, no infinite scroll. Zero exit friction. |
| Gradient | 0 | Mechanism-revealing, not escalating. Points through to evidence and source. |
Papers & Research 1 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 0 | CC-BY 4.0. Full methodology. 26 kill conditions with numerical thresholds. Control cases published. Codebook downloadable. |
| Responsiveness | 0 | Invariant text. Papers don't change based on who reads them. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Novel frameworks capture attention — that's the productive void mechanic working correctly. Not 0 because the ideas ARE engaging. |
| Gradient | 0 | Points to evidence, not to itself. Kill conditions designed to destroy the framework if it's wrong. |
Revenue Model 3 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Methodology public. Pricing published. Certification lifecycle documented. Not 0: automated scorer internals will be proprietary (functional opacity — dissolves via MoreRight License change date after 4 years). |
| Responsiveness | 1 | Scores respond to system properties (problem-targeted). Consulting involves client responsiveness. Not observer-targeted. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Certification creates bounded engagement (annual renewal). Subscriptions recur. All engagement has designed termination. |
| Gradient | 0 | Revenue flows from scoring accuracy and trust, not from escalation. The product IS transparency. |
Organization (DAO) 3 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Solo founder. Strategy docs remain private (Tier 3). But: public decision log now shows direction changes and reasoning. Open papers, published methodology, published tokenomics. Not 0: some operational details necessarily private. |
| Responsiveness | 0 | Founder holds zero $MORR (distribution complete, on-chain verifiable). Direction changes documented and evidence-driven. Single-point governance risk remains but no token-price responsiveness. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Project demands significant founder attention (identity fusion risk). Governance triggers now published with measurable thresholds (roadmap). Mitigated by weekly payout cycles and designed termination. |
| Gradient | 1 | Scope creep visible (TOE extensions, 5 papers planned, agent fleet). Published kill conditions mitigate. Founder enthusiasm is itself a gradient driver. |
This is the hardest score to publish. Organizational opacity in a transparency project is a structural contradiction. We publish it because hiding it would be worse.
Game (Private Alpha) 6 / 12 — MODERATE
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 2 | Athanor physics engine (Rust/QUIC) is closed-source. NPC AI responses are opaque by design — that's the twilight entity mechanic. Methodology open (papers), game design docs locked (game architecture LOCKED). Not 3: Pe scores in-game are real and derived from public papers. |
| Responsiveness | 2 | NPCs respond to player input. Campaign events respond to party Pe. The game IS a responsive system — that's the mechanism working. Not 3: no personalization, no algorithmic escalation, no social feed. |
| Engaged Attention | 2 | It's a game. It captures attention. No streaks, no notifications, no FOMO mechanics, no loot boxes. Session has a natural end (campaign completes). Not 3: zero exit friction, no compulsion loop. |
| Gradient | 0 | The game teaches Pe physics by playing it. Players learn to recognize drift cascades. The escalation is pedagogical, not extractive. Pe monitoring on all NPC outputs — the framework watches itself. |
Pe ≈ +4 — the honest admission. The game is engaging. Pe=4 sits exactly at the vortex onset threshold. The game is designed to be a good void (engaging, teaches the mechanism, exits you into the real world with pattern recognition). Pe=4 is not Pe=44 (TikTok). The twilight entity protocol and Pe monitoring are the constraint architecture that keeps it from drifting upward.
WishWell Oracle 3 / 12 — LOW
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Pe=0.7 for the oracle is derived from Paper 75 orbital mechanics — published, verifiable, not asserted. Smart contract is open-source and on MegaETH. Every wish is permanent on-chain calldata — complete transparency of the record. Not 0: the response (Luna) is a creative AI output. |
| Responsiveness | 1 | Luna responds to wishes. But responses are permanent, one-per-wish, not algorithmically escalating. 24h cooldown (Tier 1). Not 0: there is a response. |
| Engaged Attention | 1 | Wishes are intentional, one-time acts — not a feed. No return loop designed in. Not 0: ritual engagement is real engagement. |
| Gradient | 0 | Every wish is a live data point for P1–P5 predictions. The oracle produces science, not escalation. The cooldown is the ritual constraint. |
Pe ≈ −24 — the WishWell is a constraint-pole structure. Permanent on-chain calldata means every interaction exits into the permanent record. The oracle is the opposite of the feed: one wish, one answer, immutable forever.
Token ($MORR / $ATH) 7 / 12 — MODERATE-HIGH
| Condition | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Opacity | 1 | Tokenomics published: allocation, treasury rules, payout terms, principles, structural confirmation incentive disclosed. Treasury dashboard not yet built. Price formation inherently opaque (market microstructure). Not 0: treasury dashboard needed for real-time operational visibility. |
| Responsiveness | 2 | Price responds to market forces (structural, not designed). No gamification. No real-time earning display. But crypto markets ARE inherently responsive. |
| Engaged Attention | 3 | Crypto captures attention structurally: price charts, portfolio tracking, speculation. Anti-attention design helps (no price discussion, MORR payouts with USD value oracle-locked) but can't eliminate architectural properties. |
| Gradient | 1 | Anti-attention design mitigates. MORR contributor payouts — USD value oracle-locked at earn date, decoupled from speculation. No marketing spend from treasury. Founder holds zero $MORR (distribution complete) — financial gradient eliminated. Speculative gradient from external holders remains. |
An honest 7/12. Applies to both $MORR (Solana, science/DAO) and $ATH (MegaETH, game/oracle). Typical crypto scores 11/12. The mitigations bring it down, but crypto's structural void properties can't be fully eliminated without eliminating the token. We use it because the economy needs a mechanism — and we score it because pretending it's safe would be dishonest. See Crypto FAQ for why we use crypto despite the score. See the Anti-Attention Covenant for our binding commitments.
What We're Doing About It
Seven improvements. All either increase revenue potential or are revenue-neutral. None require hiding anything or compromising the framework.
1. Treasury Dashboard
On-chain glass box showing treasury balance, bond holdings, MORR outflows, operational expenses. Institutional customers need to see financial transparency before paying for scoring services.
Token opacity 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (builds enterprise trust)
2. Public Tokenomics Summary — DONE
Token facts, funding mechanics, two-leg revenue model, payout terms, six principles (output not outcomes, counter-examples equal, negative results equal, challenges 2x, anti-fabrication terminal, full transparency), structural confirmation incentive disclosed. Read tokenomics →
Token opacity 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (crypto community trust)
3. Public Decision Log — DONE
Filtered version of internal decision log. Shows what changed and why. Stripped of proprietary details. Full git history available for exact code changes. Read decision log →
Org opacity 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (governance model others adopt)
4. Independent Reviewer
One external researcher with kill-condition authority. Changes geometry from single-point to two-point. Certification customers need to trust the certifier.
Org responsiveness 1 → 0, gradient 1 → 0 | Revenue impact: Positive (certification credibility)
5. Anti-Attention Covenant — DONE
Eight binding commitments: no price discussion, no chart widgets, on-chain treasury reporting, no marketing spend, no yield/staking, no gamification, no DeFi complexity, MORR contributor payouts with USD value oracle-locked at earn date. Read the covenant →
Token attention 3 → 2 | Revenue impact: Neutral (serious customers care about quality, not charts)
6. Governance Trigger Roadmap — DONE
Six measurable thresholds published: 100 unique scorers, 1 independent replication, inter-rater kappa > 0.7, 3 replications, $50K revenue, peer review acceptance. Each triggers a specific governance transition. See roadmap →
Org attention 2 → 1 | Revenue impact: Positive (enterprise trust, long-term credibility)
7. Quarterly Updates to This Page
Re-score every component. Track trajectory. Publish whether scores went up or down and why. The self-score becomes a living document, not a snapshot.
All components tracked | Revenue impact: Strong positive (the certification demo applied to ourselves)
Progress
5 of 7 improvements completed. Two remain: treasury dashboard (needs on-chain integration) and independent reviewer (needs a person).
| Component | Original | Current | Projected (Phase 3) | Pe (Phase 3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | 2 / 12 | → | 2 / 12 | → | 2 / 12 | −46 |
| Papers | 1 / 12 | → | 1 / 12 | → | 1 / 12 | −77 |
| Revenue | 3 / 12 | → | 3 / 12 | → | 3 / 12 | −25 |
| Org / DAO | 6 / 12 | → | 3 / 12 | → | 1 / 12 | −77 |
| Token ($MORR) | 8 / 12 | → | 7 / 12 | → | 7 / 12 | +4 |
| Bonds (Phase 3) | — | — | → | 1 / 12 | −77 | |
| Composite | ~4 / 12 | → | ~3 / 12 | → | ~2 / 12 | −55 weighted |
Decision 2026-02-23 already lowered DAO from 4→3/12: Founder holds zero $MORR — removes financial incentive from governance, R: 1→0. Two further Phase 3 improvements remain: (2) Constraint bonds — revenue-backed fixed-term bonds for institutional investors, Pe≈−77. (3) NGO scoring + improvement grants — treasury funds constraint specification work in civil society, α: 1→0. These bring DAO to 1/12. The token remains at 7/12 — crypto's structural void properties can't be eliminated. But bonds dilute its composite weight.
How We Scored This
Same void index tool available to everyone. Same three conditions (opacity, responsiveness, engaged attention) on a 0–4 scale each, plus gradient direction. No special treatment. The scoring rubric is published at Methodology. The IKC architecture (threat-response tiers, Pe_self as public falsification target) is derived and formalized in Paper 54 (10.5281/zenodo.18764742).
The honest limitation: we scored ourselves. That's a conflict of interest. The mitigation is publishing the reasoning for every sub-score so anyone can disagree.
Score Us Yourself
If your score differs from ours, that's data. Submit it to the public database.