Dispute · correction request

Send us a report in these cases

• False positive — a legitimate project shown with a high risk level
• False negative — a confirmed scam shown with a low risk level
• Factual error — a stated basis (honeypot, tax, liquidity, etc.) differs from the current state
• Impersonation-related — a legitimate contract flagged as impersonation, or the reverse

Three required elements — we cannot review without all three

1. The incorrect data point — which token (chain + contract address required) and which signal / score / evidence item is at issue
2. The correct value — what it should actually be
3. A publicly verifiable evidence link — an on-chain transaction, official announcement, audit report, source code, or any source anyone can check

Reports without an evidence link are not reviewed. Claims alone cannot change a verdict — the same standard by which our verdicts are tied to reproducible facts.

A contact for a reply is optional.

Handling principles

• Reviews are done in regular batches — reports are not processed immediately, and we generally do not send individual replies (correction results are reflected on the token's page).
• We review every request and judge based on reproducible facts (on-chain data, simulation).
• If an error is confirmed, we re-run the assessment to correct it and improve the methodology where needed. Correction history is recorded internally.
• The score is an automated estimate, not a value judgment — some signals (e.g. mintable, ownership not renounced) can be normal by a project's design, and we reflect such cases when you tell us.
• However, reproducible hard facts (honeypot simulation, etc.) are not removed on an unsubstantiated request alone.

If you're curious how we assess, see the Methodology; for terms, see the Glossary.