This is a research workflow, not a prediction model. Its purpose is to stop a familiar name, an exciting chart or a reassuring badge from answering a question it does not measure. Work through the six sections and keep a short record of the evidence. If a field is unavailable, write “unknown” rather than filling the gap with a guess.
Use the full explainers linked below for the technical detail. The examples here are hypothetical; they are not claims about a particular token or wallet. Written with AI assistance and checked against the linked documentation on October 11, 2026.
01 / Identify the actual asset
Write down the network and the complete contract or mint address. Then compare that identity with the address published by the project and the identity shown in the pool you intend to use. A name, ticker and logo are useful search aids. They are not a unique asset identifier.
For example, two tokens can both display a fictional ticker such as PIZZA. One might be a Solana mint; the other might be an unrelated contract on an EVM network. Even a matching EVM address string on two chains needs network context. Save the pair together: network plus address.
The Solana mint documentation describes the mint account as the token identifier. The ERC-20 standard treats a symbol as optional metadata, not a global registry of unique names. That distinction matters when a search result presents several identical-looking assets.
Record: Network, address, project source, pool address and the time you checked them. Read the full identity guide.
02 / Locate the launch and trading state
Ask where a buy would execute now. Is the asset still trading through a launch mechanism, or has it moved into a pool? A progress bar can summarize a platform-specific state. It does not document every transaction in the transition.
Treat a claimed migration as a chain of records to verify. Locate the launch record, identify the destination pool and compare the two assets involved. A trading interface might select a new route after migration, so a screenshot from an earlier phase is not sufficient evidence about the current trade.
Avoid treating graduation as a quality rating. It describes a change in venue or mechanism. It does not tell you whether buyers are independent, whether the team controls a large allocation or whether demand will continue. The more useful question is what changed in the execution path and which record demonstrates that change.
Record: Current venue, pool or launch address, base asset, quote asset and evidence of any transition. Read our launch guide.
03 / Map the remaining authorities
List each power separately. Can additional tokens be minted? Can accounts be frozen? Can a contract be upgraded? Can an administrator change transfer behavior? Which wallet or contract holds each power? Different token standards and applications expose different controls, so one authority field is not a complete inventory.
Make a distinction between a power being absent and a power being present but not recently used. A quiet administrator still has the capability described by the contract. Conversely, an unavailable data field does not establish that an administrator exists.
Also separate token authority from wallet permission. An approval you grant can create a spending allowance without being a transfer. Reviewing the token’s owner does not review the application you are authorizing to spend your balance. That is a second control layer with its own address and limits.
Record: Capability, controlling address, source of the observation and any unresolved upgrade or delegation path. Read Solana account permissions, EVM approvals and what renunciation cannot erase.
04 / Read balances without inventing people
A holder table is a view of accounts or addresses. It may include exchange custody, a pool, a burn destination or several accounts associated with one wallet. Before interpreting concentration, identify the role of the largest entries where evidence supports it.
Suppose a hypothetical table shows ten addresses with similar balances. That observation alone cannot tell you whether ten independent people bought, one operator divided a position or an application holds balances for users. Timing, transfers and funding paths may help investigate the relationship, but a shared service address is not enough to assert common ownership.
Keep current distribution separate from launch distribution. Tokens may have moved after launch. A current balance cannot establish what someone received earlier, and a launch transaction cannot establish what they hold now. Both can matter, but they answer different questions.
Record: Snapshot time, largest entries, known account roles, denominator used and coverage limits. Read why holder lists count addresses.
05 / Inspect the exit route
Market capitalization is a calculation. It does not reserve enough cash for every holder to sell. Look instead at the market that would execute the trade, the available quote asset and the expected output for a relevant trade size. A small test quote answers a smaller question than a large position exit.
Liquidity control needs a separate check. If a project says liquidity is locked, identify what was locked, how much of the relevant position it represents, when restrictions end and what withdrawal or administrative paths remain. A lock certificate for one pool cannot describe every route that a wallet might use.
With concentrated liquidity, the position’s range also matters. The Uniswap explanation describes how liquidity becomes inactive when price leaves its range. A headline total is therefore different from executable depth near the current price.
Record: Pair, position or LP token, amount, current range if applicable, lock evidence, expected output and the quote time. Read liquidity versus market cap and the liquidity-control guide.
06 / Write the conclusion at the evidence level
Use three short columns: observed, inferred and unknown. “This address received tokens in this transaction” is an observation. “The timing suggests coordination” is an inference. “We could not retrieve earlier transactions” is an evidence limit. Do not promote the third column into either proof of misconduct or proof of safety.
When a claim comes from a legal document, preserve its procedural status. An allegation, an agreed order and a final finding are different records. When a claim comes from a project announcement, attribute it to the project and look for implementation evidence. When a claim comes from a screenshot, ask whether the underlying data is reproducible.
The completed sheet should help another reader retrace your work. It is more useful than a single adjective because it shows which layer you inspected and which layers still need investigation. Revisit the sheet when the asset, venue or authority changes. A conclusion about yesterday’s configuration does not automatically describe today’s route.
Keep a compact research sheet
| Check | What to save | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | Network and full asset address | Project legitimacy |
| Launch state | Venue and transition records | Sustainable demand |
| Authority | Capability and controlling address | Fair earlier distribution |
| Distribution | Dated balances and account roles | Independent beneficial owners |
| Liquidity | Pair, position and executable quote | A guaranteed future exit |
| Conclusion | Observed, inferred and unknown | A permanent safety verdict |
For worked historical examples, open Meme Autopsy. For the foundations, use the learning hub. For a new event, start with the news desk and follow the dated primary sources inside the story.