Blokiments Docs
  • 🚀Welcome to Blokiments Docs
  • ⭐Start here
    • Build your first advanced signal bot
    • Crypto Security Tips
    • Essential Checklist Before Buying Any Crypto Token
  • ❓Frequently Asked Questions
  • 🛣️Roadmap and Releases
    • Releases
    • Supported Networks
  • 🧑‍🤝‍🧑Referral Program
  • FEATURES
    • Strategies
    • Discovery Hub
      • Filters guide
        • General filters
        • Social filters
        • Security filters
        • Trading filters
        • Our scores
    • Token Analyzer
      • Security metrics
      • Social metrics
    • Caller tracker & analysis
      • Finding well performing callers
      • Caller analyzer
      • Real-Time Alerting
    • Smart Money analysis
      • Find smart money wallets
      • Analyze wallets with ease
      • Track wallets in real-time
    • Watchlists
    • Alerts
      • Telegram Alerts
      • Discord Alerts
      • Webhook Alerts
    • Search
    • Telegram Token Checker Bot
    • Blokiments API
      • Google Sheets Integration
      • Get historical price data
  • GUIDES
    • 🔥Strategy building guides
    • 📚Blog
      • Security
        • Smart contract honeypot analysis
        • Rug pullls
        • Pump Scammer Analysis
        • Smart money scammer
        • Token Sewage Spill on Base
      • Tokenomics
      • Presales
      • 💧Liquidity
        • Liquidity pools
      • Getting Slipped? Or getting MEV’d?
      • Smart Token Sniper
      • Token Comparison Workflow
      • The Value of Merging On-Chain and Off-Chain Data in Token Analysis
      • The bad, worse, and the worst
      • Caller tokens analysis
      • In-depth token analysis
        • In depth: RFC
        • In depth: Magnetix
        • In depth: House
      • In-depth wallet analysis
        • Wallet report #1
        • Wallet report #2
        • Wallet report #3
    • 📑Useful resources
      • Twitter
      • Github
      • Webpages
  • About
  • Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
  • LINKS
    • App
    • Twitter
    • Community
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • First token: $MEMEFI
  • Second token: $CARV
  • Third token: $CATS
  • The scam

Was this helpful?

  1. GUIDES
  2. Blog

The bad, worse, and the worst

Today, we are going to show you three interesting tokens that went undetected as honeypots and managed to drain money from buyers.

PreviousThe Value of Merging On-Chain and Off-Chain Data in Token AnalysisNextCaller tokens analysis

Last updated 7 months ago

Was this helpful?

Before the tokens were drained, they had some decent-looking price actions and statistics that might go unnoticed as a scam to an inexperienced token trader.

First token:

Before it was drained, it had 225k USD liquidity. Such liquidity could easily deceive you into thinking a project with such liquidity is legitimate. But there was no information about liquidity locks, so you might be cautious here. The price action was decent, with a potential to grow. But sadly, this was a scam.

But the following token, $CARV, was a bit more sneaky; it had 188k USD in the liquidity pool, and of that, 100% was burned. It would seem that it is pretty legit. Also, the price action looks very like an uptrend. But if you inspect it closely, there is something a bit off. Almost every buy candle has a sell candle following it. It looks very unnatural, and indeed it was unnatural. This coin is also a honeypot with a fake, inflated price. Ultimately, the scammer drained the pool by selling all the tokens using a hidden mint.

The same goes for the $CATS token, which had 293k liquidity and is 100% burned. Again, we have the uptrend graph with sell candles following buy candles. It looks just too good to be true. And sure enough, it was a honeypot. Again, the scammers ran away with traders' money.

We need to mention that All the coins had faked the social data. They had Twitter, Telegram, and website links to legit projects, while they were actually “knock-offs.” So that was another red flag.

We are in the process of implementing a system to detect such projects.

The scam

And the biggest red flag: In one of our previous posts, we warned you about the _transfer() function of the token's smart contract. We said to check the smart contract for any suspicious or unnecessary complicated code. Well, we could apply the same rule here for these three tokens. They ALL had similar-looking _transfer() function codes.

This is a transfer function. What is even that “gibberish”? They intentionally used weird formatting and random variable names to confuse you into thinking, “Maybe it is legit.” We will not even go into the details here because no sane and legitimate contract would make such complicated, unformatted code. IF YOU SEE THAT, RUN AWAY.

Another thing that we noticed is that these three tokens might be linked together somehow because they all used the same tactics:

  • Make a knock-off name of a real token.

  • Deploy the token with unreadable and confusing smart contract code.

  • Scam.

So maybe the same person deployed these contracts?

Second token:

Third token:

But the following part is from the CARV token, specifically :

📚
$CARV
$CATS
LINK TO CODE
$MEMEFI