Contracts, web infrastructure, and published claims, checked against the chain, not the marketing.
no tokenno feesno launchpadno paid ratings
Chips summarise the contract-layer checks. upgradeable = can the code be replaced · LP = can liquidity be pulled · owner = who holds the keys · web = headers, leaked keys, supply chain.
Scan depth is shown on every row. full scan = contracts, LP custody, frontend bundle, headers and published claims were all examined. contract-layer only = the contract was checked on-chain (verified status, proxy or not, owner powers) but the web layer and claims were not, so absence of a web finding is not evidence of a clean web layer.
Addresses link to the block explorer where a full address is cited, so any claim can be re-run. Truncated refs, storage slots and selectors are shown as plain text because a partial address cannot resolve.
checked YYYY-MM-DD is when that entry was last verified against the chain. Findings are point-in-time: contracts get redeployed and keys rotate. Full rubric on the methodology page.
ProtocolsFund-handling, beyond launchpads
DEXs, lending, yield, treasury and privacy protocols: projects with their own contracts that route or hold user funds. Tiered on the same scale as the launchpads, read through contract safety rather than rug path.
ToolsTerminals, frontends & agents
Analytics terminals, non-custodial swap frontends, wallets and agent services. Most custody nothing and deploy no fund-handling contract of their own, so they are judged on disclosure and hygiene rather than tiered.
FlaggedLive, but we flag a specific risk
Live and promoted, but carrying a material, verifiable concern: a custodial service marketed as non-custodial, gambling whose fairness cannot be checked from the deployed code, or a product whose central claim the on-chain reality contradicts. These are not accusations of theft and are not scored on the launchpad scale. Read the audit for the specifics.