SafePal

Liquidity and market dynamics score 82 out of 100. Trading liquidity looks relatively strong, with a volume-to-market-cap figure of 1.42% (volume-to-mcap 90) and liquidity depth supported by $2,331,191 of 24h volume (liquiditydepth 59). Exchange listing data is broad, showing presence on 41 exchanges, including 18 in a green category, 20 in a yellow category, and 2 in a red category (cexpresence 100).

Team credibility score 72 out of 100. Public timeline data suggests the asset is relatively mature at 5.3 years old (assetage 91). Security analysis indicates 1 audit firm on record (audits 60), and the whitepaper quality is rated medium (whitepaperquality 70). Doxxed team confirmation was not determinable from the available agent results (team_doxxed —), so personal accountability evidence is less clear than the age and documentation indicators.

Social and behavioral signals score 52 out of 100. Social audience data shows 49 on an observable “TW (linked)” measure and 30,850 for Telegram (socialaudience 49). Risk-related screening found 2 allegations and 3 items of bad press, with 0 regulatory actions and 0 incidents recorded (agentrisksignals 55). There were also scam-related flags from the same assessment (scamallegationsfound), and enrichment/social analytics snapshot data was unavailable for some influencer fields (influencersignal —, No social analytics feed snapshot).

Contract mechanics score 5 out of 100. Contract-level safety signals are weak in the available dataset: no contract security scan, no contract verification data, and no block explorer data were found (contractsecurity —, contractverified —, contractverified —). Ownership safety and ownership verification were also unavailable (ownershipsafety —). The only detailed positives here are that a hard supply cap is defined (supplycapdefined 5) and that 100% of total supply is circulating (circulating_ratio 5), but the core audit/verification coverage for the code is missing.

Even with a moderate overall safety score (48.62/100) and decent liquidity, smart-contract tokens carry inherent risks for this specific asset: contract verification and security scanning are not available in the provided records, which increases uncertainty around how the code behaves and how securely it has been validated.