FomosFi FOMOS
0xf8ccea8707cfc155ef595fc25cb77696d4445fccThis 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)
This General token has an estimated scam risk of about 88% (grade F). Decisive risk factors were found: Owner can arbitrarily change wallet balances, Hidden owner present. The main risk signals include Liquidity, Transfers can be paused. 6 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 88%
- ⚠ Risk signals combined (diminishing returns): 40% (overlapping signals add less and less)
- = Final 88% (the larger of the two, capped at 100% · the weights are human-set)
🔴 Decisive facts (reproducible, near-certain)
The owner can arbitrarily change wallet balances, effectively zeroing out holders' tokens.
There is an owner that is not openly visible, so real control may be hidden even when ownership looks renounced.
Risk signals (probability contribution)
Transfers can be paused, letting the operator freeze trading.
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.
Ownership was transferred to a burn address, so no one can call owner-only functions such as minting or pausing.
⚖️ However, a hidden-owner signal was also observed, so the renouncement may be only nominal.
No additional tokens can be minted, so there is no supply-dilution risk.
⚖️ However, a balance-change privilege exists, so holdings could be manipulated even without additional minting.
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.
There is no function to arbitrarily block specific wallets from trading.
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