PANDO PANDO
0x252b9f56359901a0bde52d0675b1f1130d86f471This assessment is an uncalibrated estimate of fraud patterns — not a price or investment judgment.
Liquidity / market
⚠ 2 signals · +47%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).
This only means no sell-block signals were observed at inspection time. Upgrades or owner actions can change the state at any time.
Observation history (60 observations · 07/24 ~ 08/18 · source: our own observation snapshots)
This General token has an estimated scam risk of about 85% (grade F). Decisive risk factors were found: Contract can self-destruct. The main risk signals include Liquidity, Ownership not renounced, Very low liquidity. 4 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): 50% (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)
The contract can be destroyed (selfdestruct), which could make the entire project disappear.
Risk signals (probability contribution)
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.
Liquidity is very low, so even a small sell swings the price sharply and exiting is difficult.
🟢 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.
No additional tokens can be minted, so there is no supply-dilution risk.
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.
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.
Liquidity & volume (for rug-risk judgment · not a price/value assessment)
Main pair (deepest pool) liquidity $111 (uniswap) · the totals combine every pair on this chain · View pool ↗
⚠ Note the two different bases: the risk score and signals are computed from the main pair alone, while the figures above are the sum of all pairs. A low main-pair pool can therefore raise a "very low liquidity" signal even when the combined total looks large.
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