BIDZ BIDZ
0x20de6118c3672659e488d1d45279cdf77391fbdcThis assessment is an uncalibrated estimate of fraud patterns — not a price or investment judgment.
Liquidity / market
⚠ 1 signal · +35%pHolder distribution
✓ No signalsIdentity / impersonation
✓ No signalsAxis cards show where signals are, not a per-axis score — the %p contribution is a simple sum, while the actual combine uses diminishing returns (overlaps add less).
Mechanisms an owner could use to block sells — transfer pause, blacklist, cooldown — were found. It can turn into a honeypot at any time.
Observation history (60 observations · 07/25 ~ 08/18 · source: our own observation snapshots)
- 소유권/권한 변경 — 숨은 소유자 탐지됨 · 08/04
The risk transitions above were detected in the observation history — register on the Watchtower to get instant push notifications of such changes.
This General token has an estimated scam risk of about 85% (grade F). Decisive risk factors were found: Hidden owner present. The main risk signals include Liquidity, Mintable, Blacklist function. 3 positive signals were also found. This is an uncalibrated estimate and not investment advice.
How this score was produced
- 🔴 A decisive risk factor forces at least 85%
- ⚠ Risk signals combined (diminishing returns): 68% (overlapping signals add less and less)
- = Final 85% (the larger of the two, capped at 100% · the weights are human-set)
🔴 Decisive facts (reproducible, near-certain)
There is an owner that is not openly visible, so real control may be hidden even when ownership looks renounced.
Risk signals (probability contribution)
The operator can mint additional tokens, inflating the supply without limit and diluting the value you hold.
⚖️ In projects that keep distributing rewards or airdrops, this is a common design. Even so, the fact that the privilege exists is unchanged, and the risk does not disappear.
A blacklist function can block specific wallets from trading, so sells can be blocked at will.
Owner powers are still active, so the owner-only functions listed above can actually be exercised.
⚖️ In projects that keep distributing rewards or airdrops, this is a common design. Even so, the fact that the privilege exists is unchanged, and the risk does not disappear.
The liquidity (LP) is not locked, so the operator can pull the liquidity in a rug pull.
🟢 Positive signals (Green Flags)
These are observed facts, not approvals — appearing on a listing or data service means a profile exists there, not that anyone vetted the project.
The contract source is public and verified, so anyone can check its behavior.
A static check found no sell-blocking configuration. This reflects a code/configuration check, not an actual trade run — cross-checking via a real sell simulation is shown separately as the 'second-source cross-check' item.
No single wallet monopolizes the supply, so the risk of a single dump is small.
⚖️ However, this metric looks only at the single largest wallet — one party splitting holdings across several wallets lowers each share and can look distributed.
Web reputation & whitepaper check (optional · about 10s)
The score above is based on on-chain indicators. This button searches the public web now for scam allegations and whitepaper content (no re-run of the on-chain check). Web search is paid and slow, so we do not run it automatically on every token — only manually when needed. Once run, the result is saved and shown automatically from then on. Web allegations are not conclusions, so verify them directly.
Community rating (for reference · not in the score)
Loading…
This estimate is as of the assessment time — a token's state can change at any moment · Method · Grade criteria