⚠ Security incident history
-
Hack
A hack incident on a protocol linked to this token was reported on 2025-12-02.
· scale ~$330,000
Original external record: “Goldfinch”
Cross-checked against external security-incident records — factual information separate from the score. Being harmed by a hack can differ from wrongdoing by the project.
Goldfinch GFI
0xdab396ccf3d84cf2d07c4454e10c8a6f5b008d2bThis 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 ~ 08/19 · source: our own observation snapshots)
⚠ Observed liquidity fell by 90%+ during this period. What that means is not yet confirmed — we have not verified here whether it is the same pool throughout (a pool migration looks the same) or a measurement gap. Treat it as a signal to check, not as a rug verdict.
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, Transfers can be paused. 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): 63% (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.
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.
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.
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