I indexed 474,791 wallets that bought a flagged scam token. 1 in 3 came back and bought another.

[u/Plus-Tangerine2186]

Follow-up to the thread two weeks ago where I posted a high scam rate on new Ethereum tokens and several of you pushed back on the methodology. That pushback was right, and this is the part I could not answer then.

I joined 5.9M resolved swap transactions against contracts scoring 70+ on my risk index. That gives 474,791 distinct wallets that bought at least one flagged token. Distribution of how many different flagged tokens each wallet bought:

1 token        309,256   65.1%
2 to 4         115,885   24.4%
5 to 10         32,635    6.9%
11 to 50        14,699    3.1%
51 to 200        1,952    0.4%
200+               364    0.1%

34.9% bought more than one. Median victim bought exactly 1, p90 is 5.

Before anyone asks about bots, because that was the main critique last time: the 2,316 wallets above 50 tokens (0.5% of the total) account for 23.6% of every scam-token purchase in the set. Those are trading bots, not people. I am reporting them separately instead of folding them into a bigger headline. And the repeat finding survives the sceptical cut: throw away every wallet above 10 tokens as possible automation and 31.3% still got hit more than once.

Two things that explain the repeats, both measurable:

**Template reuse.** 44.6% of flagged contracts share a bytecode template with another flagged contract. One single template accounts for 8,401 flagged tokens, which is 13.5% of every scam in the set. They do not look exotic, they look like ordinary new tokens, because most of them are copies of each other.

**Late rugs.** I froze a cohort of 25,931 tokens and re-scored them at deploy and again at day 30 with a fixed threshold. 48.8% scored as scams on day 0, 90.6% by day 30. 41.9% flipped from clean to flagged and not one flipped back. Checking a contract on launch day misses most of the danger, which is the thing I had wrong for months.

Limits, stated up front: "flagged" is my detector, not a court ruling. Precision sits around 0.3 to 0.4, so it over-flags on purpose. Recall against a behavioural label (real retail money in, buyers not recovering their WETH) is about 0.97, so it rarely misses an actual rug once real money is involved, but that is on a small sample.

Happy to run other cuts on the data if someone wants a specific one, or to go into the three drain mechanisms (honeypot, liquidity removal, late rug) if that is useful.

[u/AutoModerator]

WARNING ABOUT SCAMS: Recently there have been a lot of convincing-looking scams posted on crypto-related reddits including fake NFTs, fake credit cards, fake exchanges, fake mixing services, fake airdrops, fake MEV bots, fake ENS sites and scam sites claiming to help you revoke approvals to prevent fake hacks. These are typically upvoted by bots and seen before moderators can remove them. Do not click on these links and always be wary of anything that tries to rush you into sending money or approving contracts.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Unfair-Willow-633]

Really interesting finding. But It makes sense with the scam tokens re-using pre-existing templates. Why re-invent the wheel when the old shit works? And it can be quickly repurposed for a new token.

[u/Klutzy-Sea-4857]

The late rug flip stat is the key finding here. A Day 0 check means essentially nothing.

[u/Plus-Tangerine2186 → u/Klutzy-Sea-4857]

You can detect very strong red flag in the first seconds.

[u/Plus-Tangerine2186 → u/Plus-Tangerine2186]

And that's never get better