Methodology & caveats
TokensIntel separates prioritization from verdict. The community votes on what gets investigated next. Votes never decide whether a project is a scam — the final verdict is produced by the investigator and supported by on-chain evidence, contract review, and wallet analysis.
Risk scoring
A transparent, additive model. Every awarded point must link to evidence — if there is no evidence, the point is not awarded.
| Signal | Weight |
|---|---|
| Unverified contract source | +15 |
| Proxy with unknown/centralized upgrade authority | +15 |
| Owner withdraw/drain function | +15 |
| Ownership not renounced | +8 |
| Hidden mint or suspicious supply controls | +12 |
| Blacklist/freeze controls | +8 |
| High transfer tax | +6 |
| Liquidity removable by team wallet | +12 |
| Team wallets cashing out quickly | +12 |
| Exchange/unknown wallet flows after fundraising | +10 |
| Fake/weak public team identity | +6 |
| Concentrated holder distribution | +8 |
Risk labels
0–25
LOW
26–50
MEDIUM
51–75
HIGH
76–100
CRITICAL
Caveats
- Reports describe risk and evidence, not legal conclusions.
- Deterministic backend code computes totals, balances, and graph edges; AI assists with narrative and pattern identification only.
- Data snapshots are stored so each report remains reproducible.
- Project teams may submit responses or corrections.