Boson Token BOSON
0x647fe0cca3df596ba414c8c600d441bb3d10d616📊 Of the 35,429 tokens we have inspected, 26% score a higher risk than this coin. — This is a relative position within the sample we inspected, which was built by deliberately hunting scams and rugs, so it is not a general market distribution. A ranking is not a statement of safety.
This assessment is an uncalibrated estimate of fraud patterns — not a price or investment judgment. Request a correction
Contract safety
⚠ 3 signals · +52%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. 2 indicator(s) remain unverified, and upgrades or owner actions can change the state at any time.
-
arbitrum
0x54b334d6…a000· listing verified -
base
0x2192607c…3c97· listing verified -
ethereum
0xc477d038…0de9· listing verified - optimism this token · listing verified
-
polygon
0x9b3b0703…43c9· listing verified
These are per-chain instances of the same omnichain token. Thin liquidity on one chain does not by itself mean fraud, and the identity is confirmed on-chain / by listing. How do we verify? →
Observation history (54 observations · 07/07 ~ 07/23 · source: our own observation snapshots)
This General token has an estimated scam risk of about 44% (grade C). The main risk signals include Mintable, Owner can arbitrarily change wallet balances, Ownership not renounced. 3 positive signals were also found. This is an uncalibrated estimate and not investment advice.
How this score was produced
- ⚠ Risk signals combined (diminishing returns): 44% (overlapping signals add less and less)
- = Final 44% (the larger of the two, capped at 100% · the weights are human-set)
Risk signals (probability contribution)
The owner can arbitrarily change wallet balances, effectively zeroing out holders' tokens.
⚖️ Canonical-verified token — the holder of this privilege is judged to be a standard bridge/issuer (e.g., the OP Stack bridge 0x4200…0010), the normal structure of a bridge token, so it is reflected only as mint-centralization information rather than a hard risk. For a non-canonical token this would be a hard risk.
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.
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.
🟢 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