Crypto Scam Check

Can't find real names, LinkedIn profiles, or prior track record. Legitimate projects are built by people willing to stand behind their work publicly.

Founders have no verifiable history in blockchain or software. A team launching a complex financial protocol should have relevant, checkable credentials.

Team, advisors, or early investors control a disproportionate share of tokens. Heavy insider ownership creates structural pressure to sell into the public market.

Insiders can dump tokens immediately after launch with no lockup period. A vesting schedule aligns team incentives with long-term project success.

No max supply cap, with continuous minting possible by the team or protocol. Uncapped supply can dilute holders indefinitely without accountability.

Any claim of guaranteed profit is a red flag without exception. No legitimate investment can guarantee returns — if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Marketing is personality-driven rather than product-driven. Celebrity endorsements are frequently paid promotions with no due diligence behind them.

Code hasn't been reviewed by a reputable security firm such as CertiK, Trail of Bits, or OpenZeppelin. Unaudited contracts can contain intentional or accidental vulnerabilities.

Smart contracts are not published or verified on-chain, making it impossible to inspect what the code actually does. Transparency is table stakes for trustworthy DeFi.

Yield comes from new deposits rather than real revenue or protocol fees. This is the defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme and is mathematically unsustainable.

The team cannot explain how the protocol sustainably generates income. Without a real revenue model, token value depends entirely on continued speculation.

The team deletes negative comments, bans critics, or threatens legal action against questioners. Healthy projects welcome scrutiny; scams suppress it.