A new-token scanner should reject uncertain identity before it evaluates momentum. Names, symbols, websites, and logos can be copied; the chain plus contract or mint address is the primary record. From there, surface privileged controls, supply and distribution, pool ownership, execution quality, deployer history, code evidence, and claims that require independent verification.
Keep each data family traceable so one attractive metric cannot silently override missing identity, liquidity, supply, or control information.
Confirm chain, contract or mint address, decimals, metadata, and official publication from reliable first-party sources.
List mint, freeze, pause, blacklist, transfer, fee, metadata, upgrade, and recovery capabilities with their controllers.
Reconcile onchain supply, emissions, vesting, treasuries, pools, bridges, and concentration without treating labels as certain.
Verify main pairs, pool address, quote asset, liquidity ownership, lock terms, spread, depth, and realistic price impact.
Inspect deployment, funding, related contracts, early distribution, and timeline while keeping address attribution confidence explicit.
Separate code verification, audit scope, product function, partnership claims, legal statements, and market promotion.
A useful scan is a documented sequence with clear failure states, not a mysterious score that always produces a candidate.
Resolve the exact asset and reject records that cannot be matched across official sources and data providers.
Decode authorities, custom behavior, supply, distribution, pools, and deployer-related transactions.
Check code, audit scope, application evidence, legal entity, partnerships, and other claims independently.
Reject, monitor for more history, or investigate with a documented question and review date.
Scanner results become more trustworthy when their blind spots are displayed beside the output.
Early volume, holders, and price behavior can change rapidly and may be dominated by launch automation.
Wallet clustering and funding paths can suggest relationships but rarely prove common control by themselves.
Audits, locked liquidity, renounced roles, and verified code each address limited questions and cannot eliminate loss risk.
Move from the page-level framework into a detailed, source-linked research workflow.
A structured checklist for verifying a new token’s identity, contract controls, supply, holders, liquidity, deployer history, market data, and project claims.
Read the guide →
Build a Solana token scan around mint identity, supply and freeze authorities, token extensions, liquidity, holders, transaction activity, token age, and execution quality.
Read the guide →
Screen Ethereum tokens by contract address, ERC-20 behavior, roles, upgradeability, supply, holders, pools, transfer activity, layer-2 deployment, and market quality.
Read the guide →Confirm the network and exact contract or mint address from reliable first-party sources before reviewing price or social claims.
No. Lock details matter, and contract control, minting, transfer rules, market depth, and project conduct remain separate risks.
No. Verification generally means published source matches deployed bytecode under an explorer process. It does not certify security.
Use a monitor status with a future review condition rather than forcing a precise score from unstable data.
Start with a defined universe, combine independent signals, and record why each candidate survives or fails the scan.