110 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
110 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
# Scam / Fake-Hype Signals
|
|
|
|
Use this reference when a user asks whether a coin is a rug, scam, fake narrative pump, or suspicious meme coin.
|
|
|
|
## Goal
|
|
|
|
Separate three different bad cases:
|
|
- **obvious scam-risk** — high chance of rug, manipulation, or fabricated legitimacy
|
|
- **fake-hype / low-quality pump** — may trade, but the story is mostly noise and exit liquidity risk is high
|
|
- **messy but tradable** — ugly structure, but not enough evidence to call it a scam
|
|
|
|
Do not collapse all weak coins into "scam." Be precise.
|
|
|
|
## Primary red flags
|
|
|
|
### 1. Liquidity illusion
|
|
Warning signs:
|
|
- the coin appears tradable, but exits are unclear
|
|
- volume looks large relative to real attention
|
|
- spreads are erratic or suspiciously wide
|
|
- price moves hard on small visible participation
|
|
|
|
Interpretation:
|
|
- if buyers can enter more easily than they can exit, treat this as a severe warning
|
|
|
|
### 2. Holder concentration risk
|
|
Warning signs:
|
|
- a few wallets dominate supply
|
|
- deployer/team wallets remain powerful
|
|
- clustered wallets look related
|
|
- unlock or dump overhang seems obvious
|
|
|
|
Interpretation:
|
|
- concentration does not automatically mean scam, but it makes the coin structurally fragile
|
|
- if concentration is extreme and active, classify closer to avoid / scam-risk
|
|
|
|
### 3. Legitimacy theater
|
|
Warning signs:
|
|
- loud claims of partnerships with no verifiable source
|
|
- fake exchange-listing rumors
|
|
- website looks polished but contains no falsifiable specifics
|
|
- team bios are vague, recycled, or unverifiable
|
|
- social posts overpromise and under-document
|
|
|
|
Interpretation:
|
|
- fake credibility signals are often more important than weak fundamentals
|
|
|
|
### 4. Social proof distortion
|
|
Warning signs:
|
|
- comments feel repetitive or botted
|
|
- follower count is high but engagement quality is low
|
|
- shill accounts post identical talking points
|
|
- the project feels ubiquitous inside its own bubble but invisible elsewhere
|
|
|
|
Interpretation:
|
|
- hype quality matters more than hype quantity
|
|
|
|
### 5. Chart manipulation smell
|
|
Warning signs:
|
|
- repeated long wicks without stable follow-through
|
|
- random explosive candles with no broader market pickup
|
|
- price repeatedly returns to the same area after dramatic spikes
|
|
- pattern looks designed to bait breakout traders
|
|
|
|
Interpretation:
|
|
- manufactured excitement often looks different from organic expansion
|
|
|
|
## Secondary warning signs
|
|
|
|
These do not prove scam by themselves, but they weaken the case:
|
|
- narrative changes every few days
|
|
- too many sectors/themes stapled together
|
|
- tokenomics explanation is confusing on purpose
|
|
- everything depends on one influencer wave
|
|
- no credible venue improvement despite heavy promotion
|
|
|
|
## Useful distinctions
|
|
|
|
### Scam-risk
|
|
Use when one or more of these are true:
|
|
- severe exit/liquidity concerns
|
|
- strong public warnings from multiple independent places
|
|
- fabricated legitimacy claims look credible
|
|
- wallet concentration plus active dump risk is severe
|
|
|
|
### Fake-hype / low-quality pump
|
|
Use when:
|
|
- the coin may still trade, but most of the fuel is shallow attention
|
|
- quality of discussion is poor
|
|
- market structure looks weak
|
|
- timing is bad and late buyers are likely exit liquidity
|
|
|
|
### Messy but tradable
|
|
Use when:
|
|
- structure is ugly, but not enough to call scam
|
|
- there is still credible liquidity and real attention
|
|
- risk is high, but the market is not obviously fake
|
|
|
|
## Output guidance
|
|
|
|
When scam risk is part of the analysis, include:
|
|
- **Suspicion level:** low / medium / high
|
|
- **Main red flags:** 2-5 bullets
|
|
- **What would reduce suspicion:** specific evidence, not vibes
|
|
- **Bottom line:** tradable speculation / watch-only / avoid
|
|
|
|
## Hard override rule
|
|
|
|
Even if the narrative and attention look strong, classify as **avoid / scam-risk** when exit risk or fabricated legitimacy is severe enough.
|