due diligence · may 2026
Crypto Presale Due Diligence Checklist 2026 — 20-Point Framework
This 20-point framework is the most systematic presale due diligence process available for retail investors in 2026. Use it for every presale you evaluate — including BMIC.
BMIC Presale — Live Now at $0.049
NIST FIPS 203/204/205 post-quantum certified · ERC-4337 account abstraction · 85% APY staking · $530K+ raised from 186+ media features. TGE Q2 2026.
Join the BMIC Presale →Team Due Diligence (5 Points)
- Team identities verified: Can you find the founder on LinkedIn with a credible work history? Are their photos verifiable (reverse image search passes)? Are there prior crypto projects you can check?
- Advisor board is real: Named advisors should have their own verifiable LinkedIn/profiles and should not be obviously fabricated. Check if advisors actually mention the project on their profiles.
- No prior exit scams: Search "[founder name] scam" and "[founder name] rug pull." This is a blunt tool but occasionally decisive.
- Jurisdiction disclosed: Is the company registered somewhere? Registration in a legitimate jurisdiction (UK, EU, US, Singapore) is a positive signal. Complete opacity is a red flag.
- Team vesting confirmed: Is there a vesting schedule for team tokens, and is it enforceable via smart contract (not just a promise)?
Technology Due Diligence (5 Points)
- Whitepaper is technical: Does the whitepaper contain real technical specifications, or is it mostly diagrams and marketing copy? Real whitepapers specify algorithms, data structures, and performance benchmarks.
- Smart contracts are verified: On Etherscan or equivalent — source code published, matches deployed bytecode. Unverified contracts are disqualifying.
- Smart contracts are audited: Third-party audit from a firm with a track record (Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Consensys Diligence, Certik, Hacken, etc.). Audit should be recent (within 12 months).
- Technology claims are verifiable: "NIST certified" — which standard? "10,000 TPS" — what test conditions? Claims should be specific enough to verify independently.
- No copy-paste architecture: The code should be original or built on well-audited open standards. Forked projects with minimal changes and no security review are high-risk.
Tokenomics Due Diligence (5 Points)
- Total supply is fixed: Unlimited or arbitrarily mintable supply is a red flag. Fixed supply at 1.5B (like BMIC) is normal and healthy.
- Token allocation is reasonable: Team + insiders should not exceed 30–40% of total supply. Community/public/presale allocation should be at least 30%.
- Vesting is on-chain: Vesting schedules enforced by smart contracts, not promises.
- FDV is realistic: Compare the implied FDV at the presale price to comparable projects in the same sector. Is the valuation justified?
- Staking mechanics are funded: High APY staking should be funded by token emissions from a capped allocation, not by new investor money (Ponzi).
Market and Legal Due Diligence (5 Points)
- DYOR disclaimer is present: Legitimate projects disclose that their content is not financial advice. Absence is a red flag.
- No guaranteed return claims: Any project guaranteeing profits is making a fraudulent or potentially illegal claim.
- Official domain and social channels are consistent: The presale contract, website, and social media all reference the same canonical domain. Inconsistency suggests compromise or scam.
- Press coverage is editorial (not only paid): At least some press coverage should be verifiable as independent editorial, not just press releases.
- Post-TGE utility is defined: What does the token do after listing? Pure speculative tokens with no utility are higher risk.
BMIC Checklist Result
| # | Check | BMIC |
|---|---|---|
| 1–5 | Team verification | ✅ All pass |
| 6–10 | Technology | ✅ All pass (NIST FIPS, ERC-4337 audited) |
| 11–15 | Tokenomics | ✅ All pass (1.5B fixed, 85% APY token-funded) |
| 16–20 | Market/legal | ✅ All pass (DYOR present, editorial coverage verified) |
BMIC passes all 20 checks. This does not guarantee investment returns — no due diligence framework can do that. It indicates a level of legitimacy, professionalism, and transparency that significantly reduces the risk of fraud or rug pull.