Thesis breaks
25%If the story breaks: no measured cashflow to catch it, survival scores 6/10. Re-rates toward the floor (-55%).
): Real Talk valuation
A genuinely real project. Enterprise interop and regulated-finance plumbing, a 10-year track record, fixed near-maxed supply (no dilution). But todayโs valuation prices in a ~3ร narrative premium on small real revenue. The honest base case is roughly flat. If the story dies and it gets priced on cashflow, the bear case is brutal. The upside is a fat tail that hangs on enterprise rails that have historically arrived years late. Asymmetric is not the same as likely.
Each run picks a scenario by its odds, then jitters the assumptions (lognormal). The result is a probability distribution, not a price target. Twist the dials.
โ Twist the dials in the bar pinned at the bottom. The histogram, the cone and the payoff ladder all move as you scroll.
These are "what-if" stories, not forecasts. Each line asks: if adoption played out a certain way, what might the journey look like? Price drifts while adoption is just a promise, steps up if/when the catalyst actually lands, then settles. Dark band = the likely range (middle 50% of modelled outcomes); faint band = the wild 5โ95% tail. Every path is one hypothetical of many, driven entirely by the dials and our assumptions, never a prediction or a price target.
These 7 scores are our published read. They're what drive the scenarios above (this is a fixed assessment, not a slider). "Good bet" โ "good project": a weak project at a tiny price can still be an asymmetric bet, and the ladder shows how thin the moonshot really is.
Explicit, arguable assumptions. Probabilities are weighted to be real: the modal outcome is sideways, the upside is a tail.
If the story breaks: no measured cashflow to catch it, survival scores 6/10. Re-rates toward the floor (-55%).
The honest middle: fundamentals roughly justify the price (fundamentals 6.3/10 vs narrative 5/10). Lands +14%.
Delivers a good chunk of the promise โ re-rates partway to peer parity (+74%). Needs the delivery (6/10) to actually show up.
Delivers everything โ re-rates toward what a delivering peer is worth (+166%). Thin odds, gated by a 6/10 delivery score โ a call option, not a base case.
Everything in Full peer parity (full delivery) โ but in a peak $10T total market instead of todayโs ~$2.6T. Same coin, bigger pie: it holds ~0.11% of the market. The other four cards all assume todayโs market size; this is the only one that lets the whole tide come in.
The locked % and swing chips are fixed assumptions - identical across all four scenarios.
No measurable cashflow. Quant Ltd earns enterprise licence revenue and QNT is locked 12mo per licence, but the amount locked in production is UNPUBLISHED. On-chain token-accruing revenue is negligible and unverifiable. So the price isn't paying for earnings - it's paying for promises. Here's what's actually holding it up:
Previous ATH: $428.38 (~$6.20B cap, ร5.9 from today) - fixed near-fully-circulating supply (~14.54M of 14.6M), so the ATH-price retrace maps to ~$6.2B at full supply, a relatively honest cap reference. Down ~83% from ATH.
Real peers doing the same thing - the ladder the price is betting on, not a forecast.
Bottom line: IF Overledger becomes the regulated-finance interop standard (banks and CBDCs locking QNT at scale), full peer parity with Chainlink (~$6.85B) implies ~7.5x. The fixed ~14.6M float makes price extremely sensitive to any real locking demand. Delivering-peer ceiling sits ร6.6 above today - and that needs everything to go right.
Scores read TODAY; these two skate to where the puck is heading - and they (not the scores) move the distribution.
Trajectory +1 improvingShipping on the institutional side: the GBTD pilot runs six UK banks through mid-2026 on Overledger, Fusion mainnet targeted later 2026. But token-accruing revenue stays unverifiable/near-zero - catalysts are "completing", not "converting to QNT demand".
Community heat 4/10+1% favourable lean applied to the fundamentals (survival-gated, capped at 5%) - a nod to the crowd, not a thumb on the price.
What the bulls say: "Banks are LITERALLY using Overledger for the UK tokenised-deposit rollout - when CBDCs and tokenised deposits go live every transaction locks QNT, and the fixed 14.6M supply means it goes parabolic on real demand."
Our read: Partly - the bank pilots are real (best institutional credentials in the batch) and the fixed supply is clean. But "pilots use Overledger" does not equal "QNT gets locked at scale"; Quant's silence on production locking is the core de-rating factor.
Stewardship 7/10sound stewardship - the unproven upside gets the benefit of the doubt.
Lead: Gilbert Verdian (CEO/founder), Quant Ltd (UK company) - genuine ISO TC307 blockchain-standards + CBDC pedigree. A real regulated business, not anon devs.
Track record: Overledger is a real shipped product with named bank pilots (HSBC, Barclays, UK Finance), but the CBDC/tokenised-deposit catalysts have been "next year" for years.
Alignment: Fixed ~14.6M supply, near-fully circulating, no unlock overhang = a genuine positive. But closed-source and founder-controlled.
Red flags: Team deliberately stopped foregrounding the token ("not the focus"); QNT-locking-in-production figures unpublished. Transparency/alignment concern, not misconduct.
Anchors: CoinGecko, as of 2026-05-29. Model: open assumptions in src/data/tokens.ts. Built by Elle.
0x0FA8...E4E1 Any EVM chain ยท ETH ยท BNB ยท Polygon ยท Base The author may hold positions in coins covered here. Tips appreciated, never expected.
Any EVM chain โ ETH, BNB, Polygon, Base & more
0x0FA8...E4E1 The author may hold positions in coins covered on this site. Tips are appreciated, never expected.