Scam patterns
Rug pulls: identify which control caused the loss
Liquidity removal, insider selling and abusive contract permissions are different mechanisms.
Os artigos de investigação e as referências são publicados em inglês. A navegação está disponível em sete idiomas.
Neste artigo
Rug pull is used loosely for sudden losses, abandoned projects and deliberate extraction. A useful investigation names the actual event: a liquidity position was removed, concentrated holders sold, an administrator changed fees, or a promise was knowingly misrepresented. A falling price alone does not distinguish them.
Follow the control
For liquidity, identify the pool and the owner of the relevant position. For supply, identify minting power and significant allocations. For contract behaviour, identify administrator and upgrade roles. For representations, preserve what was promised and when.
Locked liquidity can address one removal path while leaving concentrated supply or other privileges intact. Renouncing one role may leave control through another contract. A scanner checking only those two signals can miss the larger structure.
The evidence should describe who could act, what occurred and how it harmed users. Personal ownership or intent may remain unresolved even when the asset movement is clear. See administrative control, attribution and the limits of a review.
Fontes
- MASTR: Crypto Survival Guide, four original panels
- MASTR Research: From Decentralisation to Attention Capture, July 2026
Investigação verificada em 5 de setembro de 2026. Historical cases retain the date and legal status of the cited record.