The Launchpad Scorecard Q1 2026: Which Token Launches Actually Held Their Value

Nine tokens launched from Tier 1 launchpads in Q1 2026. Seven lost more than 20% of their value within 30 days of trading. Two held within 5% of their first-week peak.

This is not a collection of opinions. It’s a ranking, built from price data pulled from DeFiLlama across every token that launched via Binance Launchpool, Binance HODLer Airdrops, and CoinList between January and March 2026.

The Launchpad Scorecard tracks two metrics per token. Metric D measures the drop from the T+7 price peak to T+30. It captures how much value evaporated in the first month after initial trading excitement faded. Metric A measures TGE price to T+90. It tells you whether a project built value or just deferred the collapse. Only two tokens in Q1 have complete Metric A data as of publication. The rest will be updated as they hit their 90-day marks in May and June.

Every data point in this report comes from DeFiLlama price feeds, computed from first principles rather than pulled from secondary aggregators.

Here’s the full Q1 2026 performance picture.

The Q1 2026 Launchpad Scorecard: Full Rankings

Before the token-by-token breakdown, the summary view.

Token-by-Token Breakdown

1. Flying Tulip (FT) — Metric D: -2.61% — HIGH Confidence

Andre Cronje launched his DEX/AMM protocol via CoinList after a public sale (Feb 16–22) that raised $225 million, the largest CoinList raise of Q1 2026. FT’s T+7 peak coincided with its TGE-day price. No late spike, no speculative momentum play. Demand was already there at launch. Thirty days later, the price sat within 3% of that original peak.

The $225M raise wasn’t just a fundraising milestone. It was a signal that large, informed buyers had studied the protocol and committed capital before the token went public. Those buyers don’t sell in 30 days.

Team: Andre Cronje (creator of Yearn Finance, Keep3r, co-creator of Fantom)
Links: flyingtulip.com | @flyingtulip_

2. Aztec (AZTEC) — Metric D: -3.59% — MEDIUM Confidence

The Ethereum privacy L2 launched via CoinList without airdrop farming mechanics or flashy yield incentives. The TGE price peaked on day 3 and declined only fractionally by day 30. No sell-pressure event. No unlock cliff in the first month.

Aztec had years of testnet activity, a clear roadmap milestone, and a technical community that understood what they were holding. When the token went liquid, the holders who stayed were the ones who understood where the protocol was going, not just where the price had been.

Team: Zac Williamson (CEO, co-founder), Ariel Gabizon (Chief Scientist, co-author of PLONK proving system)
Funding: Series A led by Paradigm; Series B led by a16z
Links: aztec.network | @aztecnetwork

3. Midnight (NIGHT) — Metric D: -21.44% — HIGH Confidence

The first genuine outlier in the dataset. Midnight was distributed via Binance HODLer Airdrops, a high-volume, low-friction mechanism that historically produces aggressive sell pressure. NIGHT dropped 21% in the first month. That sounds significant in isolation. Against the rest of this dataset, it’s the third-best result.

Built by Input Output Global (the organization behind Cardano), Midnight had brand legitimacy that survived the distribution mechanism. The IOG connection gave holders a context for why this token had a future beyond the airdrop.

Team: Eran Barak (CEO, ex-IOG executive), Charles Hoskinson (IOG founder, visionary role)
Links: midnight.network | @MidnightNtwrk

4. Zama (ZAMA) — Metric D: -43.36% — MEDIUM Confidence

Fully homomorphic encryption infrastructure. Serious team, deep institutional backing ($150M+ raised across Series A and B), and one of the most technically defensible narratives in the Q1 universe. Despite all of that, ZAMA’s price fell 43% from its T+7 peak to day 30.

The narrative was present. The distribution wasn’t selective enough to support the price. CoinList sale ran Jan 21–24, open to qualified purchasers but not restricted to holders with product conviction.

Team: Rand Hindi (ex-Snips, acquired by Sonos), Pascal Paillier (inventor of the Paillier cryptosystem)
Funding: Series A ($73M) + Series B ($57M) — total ~$150M+
Links: zama.ai | @zama_fhe

5. Rainbow (RNBW) — Metric D: -47.28% — HIGH Confidence

Rainbow Wallet converted points to tokens at TGE. This structure nearly guarantees sell pressure. Every user who earned points through wallet activity now had liquid tokens. Most of them sold. Price fell 47% in the first month.

The product was real (4,300+ GitHub stars on the core client, alumni of Balance and Stripe). But the launch mechanism turned the user base into a distribution event rather than a holder base.

Team: Alumni of Balance and Stripe
Links: rainbow.me | @rainbowdotme

6. Opinion (OPN) — Metric D: -47.96% — MEDIUM Confidence

Signal and prediction trading infrastructure, listed via Binance Launchpool farming (Mar 3–4). The TGE price held through day zero, then declined steadily. By day 30, OPN was down 48% from its first-week peak.

Classic distribution-led pattern: a brief liquidity event followed by continuous sell pressure from yield farmers who had no conviction in the protocol before the farming started. $25M+ raised from YZi Labs, Jump Crypto, and Animoca Brands — but institutional backing didn’t translate to retail holder conviction.

Team: Forrest Liu (Founder & CEO)
Funding: $25M+ from YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs), Jump Crypto, Animoca Brands
Links: opinion.trade | @opinionlabsxyz

7. Acurast (ACU) — Metric D: -48.39% — MEDIUM Confidence

Decentralized compute network powered by spare smartphones. TGE on Jan 20, followed by a supplemental Binance Alpha Airdrop on Jan 21. The two-channel distribution created the highest T+7 peak relative to TGE price in the entire Q1 dataset. ACU’s price on day 7 was 2.25x its TGE open.

That spike wasn’t product demand. It was a second distribution event on top of the first. When the combined airdrop selling finished, price adjusted to reflect actual demand. -48.39% by day 30.

Team: Acurast Association, Zug, Switzerland
Network: 250,000+ phones onboarded across 175+ countries
Links: acurast.com | @Acurast

8. Immunefi (IMU) — Metric D: -56.35% — HIGH Confidence — Metric A: -71.27% (COMPLETE)

The Web3 bug bounty platform that claims $25B in hacks prevented and 60,000+ security researchers. IMU’s T+7 peak equaled its TGE-day price. Demand peaked immediately and declined without recovery. Down 56% at day 30. The 90-day picture is available: -71.27% from TGE.

The product category is legitimate and the user base is real. The problem was the launch narrative. "We’re tokenizing our security platform" is a business decision, not a growth story. The market couldn’t find a satisfying answer to "why does this protocol need a token?" in the price action.

Team: Mitchell Amador (Founder & CEO)
Funding: Framework Ventures (Series A lead), Samsung Next, Electric Capital — total ~$29.5M
Links: immunefi.com | @immunefi

9. Brevis (BREV) — Metric D: -66.38% — MEDIUM Confidence — Metric A: -73.69% (COMPLETE)

Smart verifiable computing infrastructure, distributed via Binance HODLer Airdrops #60. BREV had the worst Metric D and the worst Metric A in Q1. The airdrop mechanism seeded tokens to Binance holders with no connection to the product. By day 30, price was down two-thirds from its first-week peak. By day 84, the full 90-day picture: -73.69% from TGE.

Team: Deep roots in Celer Network. Co-founder Mo Dong holds a cryptography PhD from UIUC (ex-Veriflow, VMware).
Links: brevis.network | @brevis_zk

What the Data Actually Explains

The instinct when looking at this data is to blame the launchpad. But the launchpad is not the variable.

Binance HODLer Airdrops produced the worst Metric A in the dataset (BREV, -73.69%) and one of the strongest Metric D results (NIGHT, -21.44%). CoinList produced the top two performers (FT, AZTEC) and four of the bottom six (IMU, ACU, RNBW, ZAMA).

The platform gives you distribution. It doesn’t give you a narrative that survives day 30.

CoinList’s reputation for quality curation attracts higher-conviction buyers on average. But that selection effect only holds when the protocol’s narrative can retain those buyers after the initial excitement fades. Flying Tulip and Aztec had that. Immunefi and Rainbow didn’t.

Here’s the pattern across the dataset:

1. Distribution mechanism predicts ceiling, not floor. HODLer Airdrops and Launchpool farming cap potential retention by design. You can still outperform within that constraint — NIGHT did — but the floor is lower by default.
2. Stacked distribution events amplify then accelerate decay. ACU’s dual-channel launch (CoinList + Binance Alpha Airdrop on day 1) created the biggest intra-quarter spike and an average first-month collapse. More distribution events mean more sell events, concentrated in the first two weeks.
3. Points-to-token conversions create exit liquidity. RNBW’s points-based model guaranteed sell pressure at TGE. Every points holder became a liquid seller. This is predictable from the structure, not a surprise in the data. See the airdrop alternatives that avoid this pattern.
4. Institutional backing doesn’t transfer to retail holders. ZAMA raised $150M+ and had one of the most technically credible teams in the universe. It still fell 43% in the first month. Sophisticated investors believe in the protocol. That belief doesn’t propagate to CoinList buyers without a narrative hook they can hold onto.
5. The 90-day gap is wider than the 30-day gap. IMU dropped 56% in 30 days, then lost an additional 15 percentage points by day 84. BREV dropped 66% in 30 days, then lost another 7 by day 84. The first month is the visible collapse. The three-month window is the structural one.

The Narrative Retention Test

Based on the Q1 dataset, the clearest predictor of first-month price retention is what I’d call narrative retention: whether the protocol can answer "why would someone hold this token 30 days after TGE?" with a compelling, product-rooted reason.

FT and Aztec pass this test. The narrative answer is concrete:

• FT: Andre Cronje’s new AMM, live on five chains, farming rewards accumulating.
• Aztec: Ethereum privacy going live on mainnet, protocol utility tied directly to token.

BREV, IMU, ACU, and OPN don’t pass the test. The narrative answer circles back to the token itself:

• BREV: ZK coprocessor infrastructure (what does the token do day 31?)
• IMU: Bug bounty platform (why does the platform require this token to function?)
• ACU: Compute network (which users need the token beyond the airdrop recipients?)
• OPN: Prediction trading (why hold rather than trade?)

FAQ: Token Launch Performance Q1 2026

What Comes Next

The Launchpad Scorecard updates as Metric A data completes. Four tokens cross their 90-day marks in May — ACU (Apr 20), ZAMA (May 3), RNBW (May 6), and AZTEC (May 12) — with FT and Opinion following in late May and early June.

Q2 2026 adds Bybit Launchpool to the universe. FIGHT, ELSA, and BASED are already identified as Q2 candidates. The dataset expands. Based on Q1 patterns, the narrative question stays the same.

If you’re planning a token launch in the next 90 days, the question isn’t which launchpad you use. It’s whether your protocol has a story worth holding for 90 days after TGE. If that story requires the airdrop mechanics to manufacture belief, the Q1 data tells you what comes next.

For founders who want a second opinion on how their GTM narrative holds up against this dataset, check the related articles on DeFi token launch mistakes and the DeFi GTM checklist.