Our Evidence-Based Methodology

We evaluate crypto projects using a standardized, transparent scoring system across six key areas. Our methodology is designed to surface risk indicators, not make definitive claims.

How We Score Projects

Each project receives a score from 0-100, where higher scores indicate higher concern levels. We evaluate six main categories, each weighted according to their importance in risk assessment.

1. Research

Collect data from multiple sources

2. Analyze

Evaluate against our rubric

3. Score

Assign weighted scores

4. Review

Cross-check findings

Scoring Categories

Team Transparency (20%)

High: 15-20
Medium: 8-14
Low: 0-7

Code & Audits (20%)

High: 15-20
Medium: 8-14
Low: 0-7

Tokenomics (15%)

High: 11-15
Medium: 6-10
Low: 0-5

Liquidity & Custody (15%)

High: 11-15
Medium: 6-10
Low: 0-5

On-Chain Anomalies (15%)

High: 11-15
Medium: 6-10
Low: 0-5

Communications (15%)

High: 11-15
Medium: 6-10
Low: 0-5

Review & Update Process

1

Initial Assessment

We conduct thorough research when a project is first submitted or identified, gathering data from all available sources.

2

Community Input

We consider community feedback and tips submitted through our platform, verifying claims with evidence.

3

Regular Updates

We periodically review and update assessments, especially when significant changes occur or new evidence emerges.

4

Correction Process

Projects can submit corrections or additional evidence through our submission form for review.

Presale Red Flags — March 2026 Update

Based on analysis of 36 presale projects in March 2026, the following red flag patterns were identified. When multiple flags appear together, risk increases exponentially.

🚨 Instant Disqualifiers

Any single one of these = walk away immediately

  • ⚠ Confirmed honeypot (sell tax >50% or blacklist function)
  • ⚠ Owner can mint unlimited tokens (unrenounced)
  • ⚠ Website unreachable or whitepaper broken
  • ⚠ Direct scam alerts from multiple independent sources
  • ⚠ Fake office address or fabricated team identities
  • ⚠ Tokenomics that add up to >100%

⚠ High-Risk Combinations

Two or more = extreme caution required

  • ⚠ Anonymous team + no audit
  • ⚠ Anonymous team + ROI promises >1000%
  • ⚠ Extended presale (>6 months) + low social engagement
  • ⚠ High claimed raise + very low community size
  • ⚠ No GitHub + claims of custom blockchain/AI
  • ⚠ Draft whitepaper + no liquidity lock

📊 Statistical Findings (36-Project Study)

Frequency across March 2026 presale sweep

  • 👥 Anonymous team: 66% of projects
  • 📉 Low social engagement: 57% of projects
  • 🔍 No/unverified audit: 54% of projects
  • ⏳ Extended presale: 51% of projects
  • 💰 Unrealistic ROI promises: 48% of projects
  • 🔒 No liquidity lock: 48% of projects
  • 📄 No whitepaper: 39% of projects

✓ Positive Indicators That Matter

These reduce risk but don't eliminate it

  • ✓ Doxxed team with verifiable LinkedIn profiles
  • ✓ Ownership renounced on-chain
  • ✓ Liquidity locked via Pinksale/Team.Finance (verifiable)
  • ✓ Audit by reputable firm (CertiK, Nethermind, SolidProof)
  • ✓ Active GitHub with real commit history
  • ✓ Consistent community size vs. claimed raise
Reality Check — The 3-Flag Rule When a project has 3 or more of the following: anonymous team, no audit, no liquidity lock, ROI promises >500%, extended presale, and low social engagement — the historical rug pull probability based on our dataset exceeds 90%. Of the 36 projects analyzed in March 2026, 28 (85%) had 3 or more of these flags simultaneously.

View the full March 2026 36-Project Analysis →