Founded at the
top of the market.
A proud tradition of asking the questions that should have been asked before the purchase.
Capital deserves manners.
And a background check.
Our firm was established at that most auspicious moment when everybody was a financial genius. By the following Tuesday, the founding partners had developed a keen interest in risk management.
We bring the bearing of a private bank to assets whose entire prospectus may consist of a dog in a hat. The dog is entitled to its hat. Your capital is entitled to scrutiny.
Shitcoin Investments is a parody firm and a token risk scanner. It is not a bank, investment adviser, or provider of guaranteed outcomes.
How the committee forms an opinion.
The desk examines Ethereum, Robinhood Chain, Base, and Solana mainnet tokens. It checks the network’s identity and reads the token directly before making a live report. Public market and security indexes supply additional evidence. A failed live assessment produces an error; the fictional example is available through its own clearly labeled button.
The Stink Score adds concern points only for supported adverse findings and caps the total at 100. Missing answers add zero points. An overall score and letter grade are withheld unless every listed developer-control, trading, and liquidity check has evidence and at least 80% of all listed checks have evidence. This is an evidence threshold, not an 80% accuracy claim.
Developer powers.
On Solana, active mint and freeze authorities add 25 and 20 points. Privileged Token-2022 rules add up to 25. On Ethereum and its supported networks, supported transfer-control flags add 18; hidden or recoverable control adds 18; a recorded upgrade administrator adds 15. A mint function or minting-capability flag alone does not establish unrestricted issuance: backing and permissions require review, so no dilution-risk points are assigned from capability alone.
Buying and selling.
A reported selling trap adds 40 points. High or adjustable token taxes add 15–35; other trading controls add 8. Solana transfer fees, scheduled fee changes, and transfer hooks are examined separately. Rates of at least 10% add 15 points, or 35 for at least 50%, when the per-transfer cap can deduct at least 0.01% of total supply; smaller caps stay caution findings with their exact terms. A provider’s simulation cannot guarantee every future sale.
Liquidity and holders.
Verified primary-pool liquidity below $10,000 adds 15 points; below $100,000 adds 6. Missing pool protection adds no points and prevents an overall grade. Raw address concentration may include pools, bridges, exchanges, and custodians; it does not establish independent insider ownership and currently adds no concentration points. A creator recorded by a supported Solana pool with an on-chain balance above 10% adds 12 points; above 3% adds 6. Index-only creator attribution stays unverified.
Context and unknowns.
Supported editable-branding findings and verified token ages under seven days add 3 points. A verified primary-pool volume-to-liquidity ratio above ten adds 5. Unknown branding, age, permissions, holders, fees, and volume add no points. Unverified findings appear in gray, separately from supported yellow cautions and red flags.
Reading the report card.
When the evidence threshold is met, the overall screening grade follows the score: A for 0–24, B for 25–39, C for 40–54, D for 55–74, and F for 75–100. Each of the five subject cards uses A when its listed checks found no flags, C for caution, F for a supported red flag, and ? when evidence is incomplete. A subject with a supported red flag stays F even when other checks are unknown; an unverified red-colored provider result cannot create an F. These grades describe the screening results and never establish safety.
How much confidence should you place in it?
The score is an experimental screening heuristic. Its weights and bands have not been statistically calibrated against an independently audited collection of legitimate tokens and historical scams. Software tests check network matching, provider failures, supported findings, and scoring rules; passing those tests does not establish predictive accuracy. An independent contract review and a documented benchmark with false-positive and false-negative results are needed before stronger accuracy claims.
Token structure matters. Wrapped assets can issue tokens against deposited backing, while bridges and custodians can appear as large holders. These facts require an explanation, not an automatic dilution or insider-control allegation. The scanner gives no special pass based on a familiar name or ticker.
The limits of the examination.
We inspect the largest matching pool reported by DexScreener. Authenticated Uniswap V2 pools on the supported Ethereum networks and Raydium V4, Raydium CPMM, and PumpSwap pools on Solana have specific burn or non-redeemable-share checks. Concentrated-liquidity positions, other protocols, locker permissions, and unlock dates remain unverified when no supported evidence proves them.
Indexed top holders are addresses, not a map of related people. Solana’s largest token accounts are grouped by their owners, but the result remains a lower bound. Pools, bridges, and custodians can distort concentration. A deployment service or attributed creator address does not identify every insider wallet.
A pool’s launch date is never used as the token’s creation date. Solana creation requires an initialization instruction; Ethereum-network deployment age uses a matched explorer deployment record. Reads and indexes can have different update times. Reports are snapshots and may be reused for two minutes.
A clean score means these specific red flags were not found in the available evidence. It never means safe. The scanner cannot discover every exploit, identify all related wallets, or prove that trading activity is organic.
Return to the Due Diligence Desk