Grape Protocol

Liquidity and market dynamics score 11 out of 100. Trading activity appears extremely thin, with volume-to-market-cap at 0.00% and only about $2 in 24h volume; liquidity depth is recorded as 0. Exchange listing data shows 1 exchange present with no “green trust” listings (0 green, 1 yellow, 0 red). Flags also include near-zero volume, very low liquidity, and no green-trust exchange, which together increase execution and exit-risk.

Team credibility score 48 out of 100. The team’s identity is anonymous (team doxxed: 25), and there is no deploy or genesis date available, limiting timeline-based validation. On the positive side, there is 1 audit firm on record with an audit score of 60, and the whitepaper quality is rated medium (70). However, with only partial documentation signals and an anonymous team, overall credibility remains mixed.

Social and behavioral risk score 43 out of 100. Social audience data is low (25, with Twitter and Telegram accounts marked as linked, meaning the accounts exist but follower counts are limited). Research flags include scam allegations found and hack or exploit history. The agent risk signals show 1 allegation, 1 piece of bad press, 0 regulatory items, and 1 incident, while additional concern(s) are raised by research (agent red flags: 30). This points to reputational and incident-based uncertainty.

Contract and mechanics safety score 5 out of 100. Contract-level safety signals are largely unavailable: no contract security scan, no contract verification data, and no block explorer data are present in the inputs. Ownership safety and contract verification also have no data, constraining due-diligence visibility. While a hard supply cap is defined (1,000,000,000) and 100% of total supply is circulating, the overall score is driven down by the lack of verifiable contract-security information.

Inherent crypto risk (Grape Protocol). Beyond the specific safety-score inputs, smart-contract tokens inherently carry risks such as smart-contract failures, liquidity-driven price swings, and difficulty exiting positions during stress—especially when on-chain activity and liquidity are very limited. For this asset, the combination of very low liquidity, missing contract safety/verification signals, and prior allegation/incident flags increases the probability of adverse outcomes compared with better-instrumented projects.