This is a point-in-time snapshot generated live. Larger tokens may take longer while evidence is collected.
Score from 4 of 5 categories · 1 not read
The score is computed by fixed, deterministic rules from the collected evidence — not a human or AI opinion — and it is the highest category score, not an average. The count says how many of the five implemented categories produced evaluable evidence; each one that could not be read is cut out of the score's own digits, and missing evidence is never treated as low risk.
Driven by technical
Point-in-time scan ·
Investigation summary
The strongest existing scored signal, restated as the leading conclusion.
Mint authority is active
This is an authority risk because new tokens may be minted if the authority is controlled.
4 of 5
implemented categories evaluated
1
evidence gap
7
findings scored
Risk profile
Score and evidence status are separate dimensions. Select a category for a short explanation and to investigate it below.
What Evidesa found
Each finding opens into conclusion → why it matters → evidence, with technical depth in disclosures and the linked category analysis.
Plain-language interpretation
This is an authority risk because new tokens may be minted if the authority is controlled.
Read the other way
An active mint authority is a capability its holder has, not a statement of intent. A regulated stablecoin issuer must be able to mint against reserves, and a liquid-staking token mints when someone stakes. The chain records the capability and never the reason for it.
The account allowed to create new tokens. If it is revoked, no new supply can be minted by that authority.
Why this matters
Revoked mint or freeze authority is a supporting control signal, not proof of safety. Active authorities or risk-bearing extensions raise Technical Risk.
What this does not establish
A synthesis of this dossier's own arithmetic, in reading order. Every sentence names the computed source it was assembled from; none is written about the evidence rather than from it.
USDC reads 55/100, band High or higher, driven by technical risk.
overall score
That rests on 4 of 5 implemented categories evaluated, with 1 evidence gap and 7 scored findings.
coverage
The strongest scored signal is: Mint authority is active.
leading finding
Since the previous saved observation, 2 changes were recorded at Sep 15, 2026, 15:07 UTC (1 medium-impact, 1 low-impact).
change timeline
On the selected pair's depth, a $5,000 exit moves execution about 0.8% and a round trip at that size needs roughly 3.7% to break even.
trade economics
The reading turns on mint authority (active): Supply control is live. Re-evaluate on any mint-authority change: revocation ends this dossier's supply-inflation finding, and a transfer is new evidence about who controls supply.
scenario watchpoints
Showing saved history and change details within this report view.
Most recent change digest. 2 observed changes recorded at Sep 15, 2026, 15:07 UTC (1 medium-impact, 1 low-impact).
These are observed evidence movements from saved history — impact labels describe the change category, not a new risk verdict.
Saved history for this token runs deeper than this view: the 10 most recent observations are shown. A Pro account reads this timeline up to 50 saved observations deep. Depth is capacity, not evidence — the current findings above are complete on every plan. See plans
Earliest observation in this view — no preceding entry is shown, so no interval is drawn.
Non-scored, analytical. What the pool's depth implies for slippage, the round-trip move a position needs to break even, and the size at which one exit crosses named impact thresholds. Arithmetic on public depth data — not a quote, and nothing here is constructed or submitted.
Against $592,636 of base-side depth — derived from the pool reserves the provider reported — a $5,000 exit moves the execution price about 0.8% on its own. A round trip at that size needs roughly 3.7% in its favour to break even, counting slippage both ways plus a 1% terminal fee twice — that fee is an illustration, not this product's claim about what any terminal charges, so substitute the rate yours publishes. This is analytical arithmetic on a constant-product model, not a quote: a router that splits an order across pools will differ, and nothing here is constructed, routed or submitted.
Break-even move by position size
Exit capacity
Non-scored, analytical. What the selected pool could absorb of what the largest non-pool accounts hold, by the constant-product model — a venue's capacity, not any holder's intent. Two of the four inputs a distribution-pressure reading would need; the missing two are named.
Largest-account data is unavailable, so there are no positions to value against the pool's depth.
Derived from this dossier's own evidence: the mechanical changes that would make this reading worth re-reading. Conditions, not predictions — nothing here is a signal to act.
Mint authority Active
Supply control is live. Re-evaluate on any mint-authority change: revocation ends this dossier's supply-inflation finding, and a transfer is new evidence about who controls supply.
fires on technical.mint_authority_changed
Freeze authority Active
Accounts can be frozen. Re-evaluate on any freeze-authority change: revocation ends the account-control finding; a transfer is new evidence.
fires on technical.freeze_authority_changed
Liquidity depth $1,537,288
Re-evaluate if depth falls under the $1,000 tradeable floor, or moves ±15% — the same materiality bar the change timeline records.
fires on liquidity.liquidity_usd_changed
Identity metadata Mutable
Name, symbol, links and imagery can still be rewritten. Re-evaluate on any metadata change — an identity edit after launch is evidence about the project, whatever its direction.
fires on identity.metadata_uri_changed
Non-scored, on-demand. Compares the top owner wallets' earliest observable funding for shared sources — evidence-linked relationships with confidence and alternative readings, never identity. Wallets whose history outruns the read budget answer as not established.
A bounded on-demand read: the top owner wallets' earliest observable funding, compared for shared sources and simultaneity. Wallets whose history outruns the read budget answer as not established — a refusal, never a guess.
Non-scored, on-demand, evidence only. Reads where the creator wallet's first lamports came from and whether the token's top holders share that origin — a wallet can be replaced, its funding cannot be unspent. It also reports whether those wallets recur in other launches this product has recorded: observed co-occurrence, never identity, and never a match on behavioural similarity.
A bounded on-demand read: the creator wallet's earliest observable funding, placed inside this token's own funding graph. A wallet can be replaced; where its first lamports came from is a fact about the launch.
The dossier as files — the document as PDF, findings and Trust-Diff history as CSV. Exports carry the same content as this page, including stated gaps.
Export is a Pro capability: this dossier as a PDF document, and its findings and Trust-Diff history as CSV data. The evidence itself is not gated — everything the files would carry is already on this page, free, including the stated gaps. See plans
Evidence investigation
Each panel explains the check before showing its evidence.
Preliminary overall risk (v0): High at 55/100. 1 of 5 implemented categories have insufficient evidence and may not fully reflect risk.
How Overall Risk is aggregated
Overall Risk is not an average of the five implemented categories: the most elevated one sets the result, so no combination of quiet categories pulls down a loud one. Risk corroborated independently across categories raises it further, by a bounded amount. Categories with insufficient evidence are excluded, so a gap can neither raise nor lower the result. The calculation is deterministic for a given evidence set. It currently starts from Technical Risk. Creator DNA is not implemented and is excluded.
Coverage
4 of 5 implemented categories evaluated · 1 evidence gap · 7 scored findings.
What this report does not establish
Full raw evidence, addresses, and tables for this category are in the Technical analysis below.
Plain-language interpretation
The valuation-to-liquidity ratio is very high, which may indicate limited market depth relative to the reported valuation.
How much value is pooled for trading. Thin pools move more on each trade, so larger orders see more slippage.
Why this matters
Reported liquidity is best-effort market evidence, not complete global liquidity, and does not guarantee a trade can or cannot be executed.
What this does not establish
Full raw evidence, addresses, and tables for this category are in the Liquidity analysis below.
Plain-language interpretation
This is an authority risk because token accounts may be frozen if the authority is controlled.
Read the other way
A freeze authority is a capability, and some issuers are required to hold one — a regulated stablecoin must be able to freeze on lawful order. The chain records that the capability exists, never whether it would be used.
The account allowed to create new tokens. If it is revoked, no new supply can be minted by that authority.
Why this matters
Revoked mint or freeze authority is a supporting control signal, not proof of safety. Active authorities or risk-bearing extensions raise Technical Risk.
What this does not establish
Full raw evidence, addresses, and tables for this category are in the Technical analysis below.
What this means
Unavailable largest-account data means there is insufficient evidence to assess concentration. It should not be interpreted as a low-risk finding.
A source that could not be evaluated this scan. It means the answer is unknown — not that the risk is low.
Not established in this scan: holder concentration risk — unavailable evidence is never evidence of low risk.
evidence gaps
Not included above, and available on request below: effective ownership, creator fingerprint.
on-demand reads
This brief interprets evidence; it does not advise. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold, and a band is a range rather than a verdict.
7 h 12 min since the previous saved observation.
Market cap changedincreased
24-hour volume changedincreased
Liquidity Risk finding addedchanged
37 min since the previous saved observation.
3 d 8 h since the previous saved observation.
Selected-pair liquidity changeddecreased
Market cap changeddecreased
24-hour volume changedincreased
Liquidity Risk finding addedchanged
3 h 46 min since the previous saved observation.
Market cap changedincreased
4 h 55 min since the previous saved observation.
24-hour volume changeddecreased
1 d 17 h since the previous saved observation.
Market cap changeddecreased
24-hour volume changedincreased
Liquidity Risk finding removedchanged
9 h 38 min since the previous saved observation.
24-hour volume changedincreased
Liquidity Risk finding addedchanged
37 min since the previous saved observation.
23 h 17 min since the previous saved observation.
24-hour volume changedincreased
Liquidity Risk finding removedchanged
The same record, read for motion: the lifecycle radar names the transitions this sequence evidences — distribution, control, liquidity, activity — each as a stated rule with what it does not establish.
The depth basis is the base-side reserve the provider reported, valued at the reported price. Figures describe the selected pair only — liquidity in other pools is not counted, and nothing here accounts for what another trade does to the pool between reading this and acting.
Creator wallet's recorded launch contexts 0
Re-evaluate if the count rises: a further recorded launch context is observed co-occurrence in this product's own records (collection since 2026-08-21), not identity. Past 8 contexts the reading weakens to shared infrastructure and the watch stops notifying it.
fires on recurrence.creator_prior_contexts_changed
Each condition names a change class the saved-observation ledger records — the same vocabulary the evidence watch notifies on. Nothing here predicts direction; a watchpoint is what would make this dossier worth re-reading.
Measures how concentrated the supply is among the largest accounts.
How much of the supply sits in the largest token accounts. The more supply a few accounts hold, the more the token depends on those accounts.
What this check examines
How much of the token supply is held by the largest token accounts returned by Solana RPC, and the owner authorities behind them when available.
What Evidesa found
Holder concentration has insufficient evidence because largest-account data is unavailable.
How to interpret this
Concentration can increase dependence on a limited number of accounts, but account balances alone do not establish beneficial ownership.
Scored findings
Unavailable largest-account data means there is insufficient evidence to assess concentration. It should not be interpreted as a low-risk finding.
Data status: HOLDER_DATA_TOO_LARGE
What this does not establish
Checks token-program controls that can affect supply and balances.
The account allowed to create new tokens. If it is revoked, no new supply can be minted by that authority.
What this check examines
The token program, mint and freeze authority state, and any Token-2022 extensions on the mint account.
What Evidesa found
The technical score reflects risk signals found in the available on-chain data.
How to interpret this
Revoked mint or freeze authority is a supporting control signal, not proof of safety. Active authorities or risk-bearing extensions raise Technical Risk.
Scored findings
This is an authority risk because new tokens may be minted if the authority is controlled.
Mint authority: BJE5MMbqXjVwjAF7oxwPYXnTXDyspzZyt4vwenNw5ruG
This is an authority risk because token accounts may be frozen if the authority is controlled.
Freeze authority: 7dGbd2QZcCKcTndnHcTL8q7SMVXAkp688NTQYwrRCrar
What this does not establish
Gauges how much value is pooled for trading in the selected pair.
How much value is pooled for trading. Thin pools move more on each trade, so larger orders see more slippage.
What this check examines
Selected-pair liquidity depth, valuation-to-liquidity, returned-pair distribution, and 24-hour volume from DexScreener.
What Evidesa found
The liquidity score reflects selected-pair liquidity depth and valuation-to-liquidity ratio, with aggregate-aware reported 24-hour volume when multiple Solana pairs are returned.
How to interpret this
Reported liquidity is best-effort market evidence, not complete global liquidity, and does not guarantee a trade can or cannot be executed.
Scored findings
The valuation-to-liquidity ratio is very high, which may indicate limited market depth relative to the reported valuation.
Market cap / returned-pair liquidity: 17325.16x
Supporting & informational signals
What this does not establish
Assesses short-term market behaviour from selected-pair evidence.
The single largest trading pool the scan evaluated. Smaller or unlisted pools are not added together.
What this check examines
Selected-pair price movement, turnover, pair age, and transaction mix, plus locally recorded price snapshots when available.
What Evidesa found
No configured Market Momentum Risk v0 thresholds were crossed based on available third-party market data.
How to interpret this
Short-term market behaviour does not establish intent. Unavailable market data is an evidence gap, not low or high risk.
Supporting & informational signals
What this does not establish
Creator / Deployer Evidence is a bounded, experimental, evidence-only signal from a Solana signature search. It does not contribute to the Overall Risk score.
How to interpret this
Treat this as a lead for further review, not a conclusion. The earliest observed transaction may not be the creation transaction, and the fee payer or signer is not proof of the real creator or team.
What this does not establish
The bounded signature search reached its page limit. The first observed transaction shown may not be the true creation transaction — earlier history may exist.
This is the earliest transaction observed within the inspected window, not a confirmed creation transaction. Earlier history may exist beyond the bounded search.
The creator wallet against this product's own recorded edge observations — other launches it was recorded in. Read at scan time and saved with this observation; the fingerprint below adds the funding origin.
This launch's creator wallet appears in no other recorded launch context. The recorder is young — absence of recording is not absence of history.
Collection since 2026-08-21; counts are floors of observation, not history. An exchange hot wallet funds many unrelated wallets; its recurrence across launches carries no coordination.
Evidence only — not scored
Experimental
This optional check uses the first-observed fee payer as the seed address for a bounded search. It may take several seconds, does not run automatically, and does not affect any score.
Provisional seed from current report evidence
The server re-derives and validates the seed before running the bounded search, so the seed actually analyzed may differ.
This is a bounded historical search and may not cover the address's complete activity.
The association does not prove common ownership, identity, intent, or project quality.
The observed fee payer or signer is not proof of the token's real creator or project team. It may be a launchpad, deployment service, script wallet, PDA-related authority, or operational account. This is evidence-only and not full wallet clustering.
Data sources, their status, and server-side timing for this scan. Non-scored sources are listed for transparency and are excluded from the five implemented category scores.
Point-in-time scope
This is a point-in-time snapshot, not continuous monitoring. Market data, holder data, and metadata may change. Server-side timing shown in this report is observed during this run and is not a service-level guarantee.
Risk aggregation
Technical, holder, liquidity, social/narrative, and market momentum findings are generated from available data. The preliminary overall score (v0) is the maximum of the implemented category scores, not an average. Score bands are score ranges, not verdicts.
Creator DNA exclusion & non-scored sources
Creator DNA scoring is not yet implemented and is excluded from Overall Risk. Bounded on-demand Creator Launch History is implemented separately and is experimental and non-scored. Related-wallet and transfer-graph analysis are not implemented. Identity metadata is displayed for usability and is not security evidence.
Evidence limitations
| Market | Exchange | Pair | Reported liquidity | 24h volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USDC / USDT | raydium | Selected pairBZtgQE…4R8mUU | $1,537,288.02 | $2,055,113.35 |
| USDC / USDT | meteora | 32D4zR…xD9prG | $913,451 | $601,617.06 |
| USDC / USDT | orca | 4fuUiY…LTy4T4 | $748,650.76 | $1,968,833.06 |
| USDC / USDT | meteora | ARwi1S…2tpmEq | $262,316.46 | $45,546.6 |
| USDC / USDT | raydium | 3NeUgA…x6bAgx | $36,722.56 | $5,730.41 |
Liquidity depth and valuation-to-liquidity ratio scoring use the selected pair. When multiple returned Solana pairs provide volume, the low-volume signal uses their aggregate reported 24-hour volume.
DexScreener-reported liquidity across returned Solana pairs is best-effort market evidence, not complete global liquidity. Centralized exchange liquidity, unavailable pools, and venues not returned by DexScreener may be excluded.