RugDoc

RugDoc Ultimate Review Guide with FAQ — How I actually use RugDoc before I approve or stake

Ever stared at a shiny new farm or token and thought, “Is this safe… or am I about to get rugged?” I’ve been there. FOMO is loud, contracts are complicated, and one unchecked box can cost you your stack.

In this guide, I’ll show you exactly how I use RugDoc in the real world—what the ratings really mean, which tags are absolute deal-breakers, and how to translate their notes into simple go/no-go rules before you click approve or stake.

By the time you’re done, you’ll read RugDoc reviews like a pro, spot “nope” risks in seconds, and run a quick checklist that has saved me from painful losses more than once.

Describe problems or pain

DeFi moves fast. Code changes overnight. Scams adapt. And a lot of folks don’t know what “migrator,” “upgradable proxy,” or “no timelock” actually implies until it’s too late.

• Jargon vs. reality: Terms like migrator or proxy sound harmless; in practice, they can mean someone else can move your funds or change contract logic without warning.


• Audits ≠ reviews: People mix up audits, reviews, and KYC. They solve different problems—and none of them is a magic shield.


• Snapshots, not guarantees: A farm can be “Low Risk” on Monday and ship an upgrade Tuesday. Without a timelock or multisig, you get blindsided.

Real-world reminders:

• Compounder Finance (2020): a so-called “yield optimizer” that hid a backdoor; users lost millions when the team pulled funds. A classic example of why owner privileges matter.


• Meerkat Finance (2021): tens of millions vanished on BSC right after launch—centralized control struck again. No clever tokenomics can save you from a single powerful key.


• Token tax traps: fee-on-transfer “honeypots” exploded during bull runs; buyers could get in but not out without eating brutal taxes or blocked sells.

Security firms keep saying the quiet part out loud: scams and code-level traps remain a persistent share of crypto crime each year. You don’t need a PhD to manage this risk—you just need a repeatable process and the right tools.

Rule I live by: Trust the narrative, verify the contract. If the on-chain reality doesn’t match the pitch, I’m out.

Promise solution

Here’s the plan. I’ll break down what RugDoc is (and isn’t), how to use it step-by-step, what each risk rating and tag actually means in human language, and how to turn their notes into action:

• Read ratings the way seasoned farmers do


• Spot deal-breakers (migrator, unrestricted mint, no timelock, upgradeable proxy with full admin)


• Build a quick checklist you can run in under two minutes


• Know when to size down, wait, or walk away

I’ll also answer the most common questions people ask on Google and in Telegram so you don’t have to bounce between five tabs to figure out basic stuff.

Who this guide is for

• Farmers chasing APRs who want a fast sanity check


• Token hunters who approve spend limits daily and want fewer “oops” moments


• Anyone who’s been rugged once and swore “never again”

I’ll keep it practical and BS-free—same standard I hold on Cryptolinks.com/news/.

Quick note

None of this is financial advice. RugDoc is a tool, not a guarantee. Your edge is learning how to read risk and sticking to your rules. This guide helps you build those rules and apply them quickly—before you press confirm.

Ready to see what RugDoc actually is, who runs it, and what you can realistically expect from their ratings? The next section breaks it down in plain English—want me to show you where RugDoc shines and where it doesn’t?

RugDoc 101: what it is, who runs it, and what you can expect

When I’m scanning a fresh farm or token and the clock is ticking, RugDoc is the tab I open to get a quick, plain-English read on contract risk. They triage new DeFi projects fast, flag common rug vectors, and label them with blunt ratings like Low, Medium, High, or Not Eligible/Unsafe. It’s not an audit, but it’s a reliable filter when you need signal over noise.

“Trust, but verify.” In DeFi, verification starts with the contract—and the people who review it.

Why this matters: rug pulls are not a myth or a meme. Chainalysis reported that rug pulls made up a huge share of scam revenue in 2021, and the pattern hasn’t vanished—just evolved. Having a consistent, independent reviewer that explains risks in normal language helps you avoid obvious traps without needing a CS degree.

What is RugDoc, in simple terms?

It’s a reviewer team focused on new farms/tokens that screens the code and points to the stuff that can hurt you. Think of it like a fast triage in an emergency room: they won’t perform surgery, but they’ll tell you if there’s bleeding you can’t see yet.

• They look for: owner powers, migrators, minting permissions, upgradable proxies, timelocks, fee mechanics, and weird transfer hooks.


• They publish: a short write-up plus a clear risk rating you can actually use when sizing a position.


• They nudge better behavior: with KYC and a “Guarded Launch” standard that rewards teams who lock liquidity, add timelocks, and restrict admin powers.

Real-world example: I’ve seen RugDoc flag a MasterChef-style farm with a hidden migrator a few hours before launch. That single tag likely saved a lot of people from staking into a contract where funds could be moved out by the owner—classic rug vector.

Is RugDoc legit and independent?

They’ve been around since DeFi summer and built their name by shipping quick, consistent reviews when the market was moving at breakneck speed. Are they perfect? No. No reviewer or auditor is. But they’re transparent about what they cover (and what they don’t), and they don’t play the “everything is fine” game.

• Independence: Treat their review as one strong data point—not the final word. That’s how I use it.


• Consistency: Their tags mean the same thing across chains and forks, which makes pattern recognition a lot easier.


• Accountability push: Their KYC option adds consequences for bad actors without exposing identities to the public by default.

When I’m time-boxed, I’d rather have a sober, independent read fast than a paid “rubber stamp” that tells me nothing. RugDoc fills that gap.

How does RugDoc differ from audits?

Audits are deep technical assessments that can take days or weeks. RugDoc is a rapid, human review that focuses on the biggest levers of risk you face as a user.

• Audits: comprehensive, formal reports; best for complex systems and large TVL; still not bulletproof.


• RugDoc reviews: quick triage, real-world risk tags, ideal for early-stage farms and launches where speed matters.


• Reality check: both can miss things; both can be outdated the moment a contract is upgraded or swapped.

I think of audits as “slow, deep certainty” and RugDoc as “fast, practical certainty.” When I’m deploying serious capital, I want both—but I won’t wait on an audit to avoid an obvious migrator or permission issue I can spot today.

Is RugDoc free to use?

Yes. You don’t pay to browse or read reviews. Projects can pay to enter queues, complete KYC, or pursue Guarded Launch, but as a user you can check everything for free.

• Win for users: instant access, zero cost.


• Win for projects: faster listing and standards that boost credibility if they’re willing to meet them.

The best part is the accessibility—anyone can open a RugDoc page and understand what the main risks are without slogging through a 40-page PDF. That levels the playing field for newer participants who are still learning contract basics.

I’ve told you what RugDoc is and why it earns a permanent slot in my “first look” workflow. Want to see exactly how I use it—click by click—so you can judge a fresh farm in under three minutes? Keep reading; I’ll show you the exact steps next and the fast checks I never skip.

How to use RugDoc step-by-step (the way I actually do it)

If you’ve ever felt your heart race before pressing “Approve,” you’re not alone. The trick isn’t to kill your curiosity—it’s to give it guardrails.

“Trust is not a strategy. Verification is.”

Step 1: Search the project on RugDoc

I start by searching the exact project name on RugDoc. If nothing shows up, I assume I’m early—and that risk is higher until I can validate everything myself.

• No listing yet? I slow down. New contracts without external eyes are where most rugs sprout. Chainalysis has repeatedly noted in their Crypto Crime reports that many rug pulls revolve around fresh tokens with little history. See Chainalysis Reports.


• Found it? I read the summary and take note of the exact rating. Then I click through to the risk notes—that’s where the real signal lives.

Real-world example: A “new farm on BSC” with sky-high APRs wasn’t listed when I checked one morning. By afternoon, a review appeared with warnings about owner privileges and no timelock. That tiny delay saved me from becoming exit liquidity.

Step 2: Read the flags, not just the label

The color of the badge is not the whole story. I scan RugDoc’s notes for the exact control points a team holds.

• Owner privileges: Can the owner change fees, pause the contract, mint, or withdraw? If yes, how restricted is it?


• Migrator: If a MasterChef-style farm has a migrator, that’s a classic rug vector. I don’t negotiate with this one.


• Upgradable proxy: Powerful, but if a single admin can swap logic without delay, that’s a stealth-change risk.


• No timelock: Instant changes mean instant surprises.


• Fee-on-transfer tokens: Can break pools, distort APRs, and trap exits with unexpected taxes.


• Odd referral or deposit/withdrawal fee logic: If the math or caps aren’t clear, I assume the worst until proven otherwise.

Want a primer on common dangerous patterns? RugDoc’s docs are a handy refresher: docs.rugdoc.io.

Real-world example: Back in the MasterChef fork mania, plenty of farms shipped with a migrator “for future upgrades.” We all know how that chapter ended for many apes. Seeing that single line in the flags would have told you everything.

Step 3: Check dates, chains, and versions

Cloned names across chains are common. I verify I’m on the right network and looking at the most recent contract.

• Network: Is the review for BSC, Arbitrum, Polygon, or another chain? Don’t mix them up.


• Timestamp: If the review is old and the project upgraded, risk can change fast.


• Versioning: “V2” or “new router” mentions should send you to the latest address in the review notes or official announcements.

Tip: I keep the project’s official announcements open next to RugDoc to catch any post-review contract swaps.

Step 4: Cross-check with explorers

RugDoc gets me 80% of the way. The last 20% comes from Etherscan/BscScan-style checks to confirm reality on-chain.

• Verify the address and code hash: On Etherscan, BscScan, or your chain’s explorer, make sure the reviewed contract address and bytecode match what you’re about to approve.


• Owner and timelock: In “Read Contract,” check owner() or getOwner(). If the owner is a timelock or a reputable multisig, that’s better than a single EOA.


• Proxy patterns: If it’s a proxy, click “More Info” → “Read as Proxy” to see the current implementation and admin. A single EOA as proxy admin = elevated risk.


• LP lock: Check if LP tokens are locked on tools like Team Finance or Unicrypt, or burned to a null address. Note the unlock date.


• Token taxes: In the token contract, look for functions like setTax, setFees, or transfer hooks. Sudden tax hikes are a common trap.


• Recent admin actions: In “Events,” scan for OwnershipTransferred, SetImplementation, SetFee, etc. If permissions changed after RugDoc’s review, reassess the risk.

Real-world example: I’ve seen “Low” become “Nope” when a project quietly moved proxy admin to a fresh wallet. The explorer doesn’t lie.

Step 5: Look for KYC/Guarded Launch

If I see RugDoc KYC or Guarded Launch, I click through and read what’s actually covered. It raises the floor, not the ceiling.

• KYC: Increases accountability if something goes wrong. It does not fix bad code or reckless tokenomics.


• Guarded Launch: Signals timelocks, LP locks, restricted owner powers—great for early-stage entries when verified.

As SlowMist and others have tracked, a significant chunk of losses come from permissions misuse and insecure upgrades—not just “hacks.” Design choices matter as much as code. See the public dashboard at hacked.slowmist.io for patterns.

Step 6: Decide your rules before you ape

Here’s my personal playbook once I’ve read the RugDoc notes and checked on-chain:

• If I see High Risk or Not Eligible: I pass. I don’t try to outsmart structural risk.


• If I see Medium: I size down, wait for timelock or ownership adjustments, and monitor LP lock status. If those upgrades land, I reconsider.


• If I see Low: I still size responsibly and set exit rules. “Low” is not “safe,” it’s “fewer obvious traps today.”


• No review yet: I assume risk until proven otherwise—tiny position or watchlist only.

My guardrails:

• Never commit more than a pre-set % of my stack to a single new contract.


• Set alerts for ownership or proxy admin changes. If they flip, I reassess instantly.


• Exit first if something unexpected appears; ask questions after. Surprises rarely help holders.

Real-world example: A “Medium” farm upgraded to a timelock and locked LP for 6 months. I sized in small, set a tight risk cap, and scaled only after I saw the timelock function properly hold a parameter change in the queue.

You’ve now got the workflow. But what do those ratings and tags really telegraph about risk in practice—especially the difference between “Medium” and “Low” when owner powers and proxies are involved? In the next section, I break down the labels the way traders actually use them, with the gotchas that don’t show up in a single badge.

RugDoc risk ratings and tags explained (what they REALLY mean)

“In fast markets, certainty is a myth. Replace it with a checklist.”

Low Risk doesn’t mean safe

When I see a Low Risk tag on RugDoc, I translate it as “fewer obvious contract traps,” not “green light.” Typically, it means the code uses familiar patterns, admin powers are limited, and the scary stuff (like migrators or unlimited minting) is absent.

But Low Risk won’t protect you from team decisions or market wreckage. According to Chainalysis, rug pulls made up a big chunk of scam revenue in 2021, and most of them didn’t rely on exotic code tricks—just trust and timing. So even with a Low Risk rating, I still size positions like the team could nuke the tokenomics tomorrow.

• What I look for: Timelock live, multisig owner, no proxy admin shenanigans, no hidden transfer fees. If any of these are “almost there,” I keep my size tight.


• Real-world vibe check: Plenty of MasterChef-style farms look clean yet crater because emissions outrun demand. Clean code won’t save bad economics.

Medium Risk is common on new farms

This is RugDoc’s “proceed carefully” bucket and it shows up a lot on fresh deployments. Usually it’s because the owner still holds meaningful controls (fee changes, reward rates, or pausing), or a timelock hasn’t been turned on yet. Sometimes the code is fine, but the launch setup is loose.

• Typical reasons: No timelock (yet), admin can change fees, emissions adjustable without delay, or a fee-on-transfer token is involved.


• How I respond: I either wait for fixes (timelock + LP lock + verified ownership) or I enter tiny and keep alerts on for admin changes. If the team flips those switches responsibly, risk often improves fast.


• Example pattern: New BSC farm forks a known MasterChef, removes migrator (good) but launches without a timelock (meh). If they add a 24–48h timelock and move ownership to a reputable multisig, I’ll reconsider size.

High Risk / Not Eligible / Unsafe

This is where I shut the tab. High Risk means a credible rug path exists. Not Eligible/Unsafe means RugDoc wouldn’t even rate it under normal rules. In 2021, many MasterChef v1 forks left the “migrator” function intact—teams used it to teleport staked assets out. That’s the textbook example of why these labels matter.

• Deal-breakers I’ve seen: Migrator present, unrestricted minting, upgradeable proxy with full-control admin, or near-term LP unlocks.


• What happens next: If I spot any of the above, I walk. No “but the APR…” pep talks. APR isn’t a parachute.


• True story pattern: Proxy-admin-controlled contracts that looked fine on day one, then got upgraded to insert a 99% sell tax or blacklist sells. If the proxy admin is a single wallet with no timelock, it’s a no from me.

Common flags you’ll see

• Owner privileges
  Why it matters: If the owner can change fees, pause contracts, set reward rates, or redirect treasury, they can materially alter your risk after you enter.
  What I check: Is there a timelock? Is ownership in a trusted multisig? Are functions like setTax, setTreasury, or setRewardRate permissioned and delayed?


• Migrator
  Why it matters: Classic rug vector from old MasterChef code—lets the contract move staked tokens elsewhere.
  Tell-tale sign: Any mention of migrate or migrator in yield contracts is an instant pass.


• No timelock
  Why it matters: Teams can change critical parameters immediately. Even honest teams make mistakes under pressure.
  My baseline: I want 24–48h timelock on key functions before I scale size.


• Upgradeable proxy
  Why it matters: The logic can be swapped after launch. This is powerful for fixing bugs—but deadly if the admin is a single EOA and there’s no delay.
  Reality check: I look for a timelocked multisig as proxy admin. If it’s a single wallet, I treat it as High Risk, regardless of the current implementation.


• Fee-on-transfer tokens (a.k.a. tax tokens)
  Why it matters: They can break pools, skew APRs, and turn into sell traps if taxes are raised. Remember the “can’t sell” headlines? That’s often this mechanic abused.
  Quick filter: Verify max tax caps in code, who can change them, and whether the DEX pair is compatible with taxed transfers.


• External dependencies
  Why it matters: Contracts that rely on other contracts you don’t control (routers, token modules, oracles) inherit those permissions and risks.
  What I do: I trace the approvals and check admins on each dependency. If the “safest” contract points to a risky router, the stack is still risky.

Guarded Launch tags

When RugDoc marks a project with Guarded Launch, it usually means the team agreed to stricter rules—timelocks, LP locks, and limited permissions from the start. It’s a real signal of intent and clean setup, especially for farms that need trust to bootstrap.

• What it tells me: The team planned for safety mechanisms before hype. That lowers the chance of “whoops, we forgot the timelock.”


• But still: I confirm the timelock exists on-chain, the LP lock has real duration, and the proxy admin (if any) isn’t a lone wallet.

Here’s the honest truth: ratings and tags tell you what the code could do to you, not what the team will do next. Ever wondered where the biggest blind spots live—outside the code? Keep reading; that’s exactly where we’re going next.

Limits of RugDoc (and how I cover the gaps)

RugDoc is great at catching contract-level traps fast, but it won’t save you from human choices, tokenomics gravity, or sudden changes after a review. I treat it like a strong first pass—and then I run the checks below to protect myself from everything it can’t see.

“In DeFi, you don’t just manage risk—you manage surprise.”

Social and operational risk

The scariest losses I’ve seen weren’t “bugs”—they were people problems: vanished teams, compromised keys, or multisig signers who weren’t as independent as advertised. RugDoc can’t predict behavior.

• Team walkaways: Remember AnubisDAO (2021)? ~$60M gone overnight, no complex exploit required. It was mostly social trust and a hype loop.


• Multisig ≠ magic:Ronin’s $625M bridge hack (2022) showed how signer compromise can nuke a “secure” setup. If a few people control the keys, you really just trust those people.


• Operational chaos: Sloppy deploys, wrong parameters, or rushed upgrades can brick a protocol even if intent is good. Audits and reviews don’t cover human panic.

My move: I check founder history, how they respond to tough questions, and who actually holds keys. If the team dodges accountability or can’t explain basic security posture, I’m out—no matter the rating.

Economic risks

You can have squeaky-clean code and still get wrecked by token design. Unsustainable emissions, reflexive selling, or broken pegs can zero you out without a single hack.

• Emissions death spirals:IRON/TITAN (2021) collapsed in a classic feedback loop: minting incentives + fear = bank run. No exploit, just economics.


• Tax tokens and fee traps: Aggressive buy/sell taxes can nuke liquidity and make exits painful. A “harmless” 10–20% round-trip tax can be a hidden cliff.


• APR bait: Triple-digit APR with no real revenue is emissions dressed as yield. If rewards are paid in the same token that’s being dumped to pay those rewards, I assume I’m the exit liquidity until proven otherwise.

My move: I read the docs like I’m trying to break the model. Where does real revenue come from? What has to be true for this peg/price to hold? If the answer is “constant growth” or “number go up,” I size tiny or skip.

Timing and updates

Reviews are snapshots. A project that looked clean last week can ship a proxy upgrade tonight and flip the risk profile.

• Post-review changes: I’ve seen teams add new fee logic or shift ownership after a review and before a big marketing push. That “Low” label becomes outdated instantly.


• Proxy games: Upgradable contracts can change logic without redeploying. If the admin is a single wallet, you’re trusting that wallet with everything.


• Silent parameter flips: A quick admin call to increase withdrawal fees or pause functions can trap late entrants. It happens.

My move: I always verify the current contract state on-chain. On Etherscan/BscScan, I check the “Read/Write as Proxy” tab, the proxy admin, recent OwnershipTransferred events, and any function calls like setTax, updateFees, or upgradeTo. If something changed since the review, I treat it as unreviewed.

My extra checklist

Here’s what I add on top, every single time. It takes minutes and saves pain.

• LP locked? Check locks on Unicrypt or Team Finance. I want unlock dates that extend at least through my planned holding window. If the LP is tiny or unlocks this week, I assume exit risk is high.


• Timelock live and meaningful? A 12–48h delay on sensitive functions gives me room to react. “Timelock added soon” isn’t a thing—I want it live.


• Ownership parked safely? Best: reputable multisig (e.g., Gnosis Safe) with a healthy threshold like 3/5 or 4/6 and known signers. Worst: single EOA with god mode.


• No migrator or stealth mint? If I see migrator hooks or open mint permissions lurking anywhere, I stop. I also scan for mint, ownerMint, setMinter, and similar functions in the verified code.


• Fees are reasonable and capped? Buy/sell taxes >5–8% each way are a red flag unless there’s a very strong reason. I look for hard-coded caps or governance constraints, not promises.


• Liquidity depth and slippage? If I can’t simulate a 5–10k trade with <1–2% slippage on-chain, I treat the token as illiquid. Thin books turn tiny sells into cliff falls.


• Emissions math passes a sniff test? I compare daily token emissions to realistic demand. If daily new supply dwarfs likely buy pressure, that APR is just a countdown.


• Admin history is clean? I check the admin wallet’s past transactions. If they’ve hopped through multiple projects that ended badly, that’s a no from me.

And yes, I keep it simple: if two or more answers make me uneasy, I skip. I’d rather miss one moon than fund ten funerals.

Quick gut-check I use: “Would I be comfortable if the token drops 30% right after I buy?” If the honest answer is no, I either pass or size so small I can sleep.

So what about identity checks and launch rules—do they actually move the needle on safety? In the next section I break down how KYC and Guarded Launch fit into this picture, where they help, and where they absolutely don’t. Ready to see which signals I actually trust when I’m early?

RugDoc KYC and Guarded Launch: what they do (and don’t do)

Here’s the truth: I love a good launch, but I love sleeping at night more. RugDoc’s KYC and Guarded Launch give me that “I can breathe” feeling — not because they make a project safe, but because they raise the floor on what can go wrong fast.

“Good teams design for your worst day, not their best intentions.”

KYC explained (in plain language)

KYC on RugDoc means the team’s real identities are privately verified. If a project rugs or commits fraud, RugDoc can cooperate with authorities and disclose identities. That adds accountability and raises the cost of bad behavior. It does not fix code, tokenomics, or market behavior.

• What KYC helps with: reduces anonymous exit scam incentives; makes legal follow-up viable; raises trust with early users and partners.


• What KYC doesn’t cover: contract bugs, reckless emissions, treasury mismanagement, or devs making terrible decisions.

Why I care: Chainalysis’ crime reports have shown for years that scams lean on anonymity and short life cycles. KYC doesn’t eliminate risk, but it cuts one of the biggest enablers: zero accountability. If you want receipts, start with Chainalysis’ annual crime summaries — they consistently show how anonymity fuels exit scams (source).

Real-world feel: I’ve watched KYC’d teams walk back bad parameters because they knew they couldn’t just vanish. KYC didn’t make the token moon — it simply kept the blast radius smaller when things got shaky.

Guarded Launch basics (why I take these seriously)

Guarded Launch is RugDoc’s standard for safer early days. Think “seatbelts for week one.” The exact checklist can vary by project type, but the spirit is consistent: limit power, lock liquidity, and slow down changes so users can react.

Typical requirements I look for on a Guarded Launch page:

• Timelock on privileged functions (e.g., 12–24 hours) so changes can’t blindside users.


• LP lock in a reputable locker (Unicrypt, Team Finance, PinkLock, etc.) for a meaningful period.


• No migrator and no hidden withdrawal routes for staked funds.


• Owner in multisig (Gnosis Safe) with public signer addresses and sane quorum (e.g., 2/3 or 3/5).


• Tax/fee caps hard-limited in code (no “surprise 25% sell tax” after launch).


• No unrestricted proxy upgrades during the guarded period, or upgrades gated by timelock + multisig.


• Emissions/vesting disclosed with on-chain addresses for team and treasury allocations.

Security reports from audit firms regularly list access control and upgradeability misconfigurations among the top incident causes — exactly the kind of stuff Guarded Launch tries to box in (reference: industry reports).

Quick story: I once tracked a farm that launched with a 24h timelock and locked LP. A parameter bug slipped through. Because of the timelock, they announced the fix, users had time to adjust, and nothing catastrophic happened. Without the guardrails, that could’ve been a predatory “oops” moment.

How I actually use these signals

I treat KYC and Guarded Launch as a “greenish” light — not full throttle, but worth my attention if other pieces line up.

• If I see KYC + Guarded Launch + Low/Medium risk on RugDoc, I start a shortlist. Then I verify:
  
  
  
  • Is the owner in a multisig with public signers?
  
  
  • Is the timelock live on-chain and active on the exact contract I’m using?
  
  
  • Is LP actually locked, with a visible unlock date and locker address?
  
  
  • Are upgrade paths limited or timelocked?
  
  
  • Are fee/tax maxima enforced in code?
  
  
  
  


• If KYC is missing + no Guarded Launch + High risk flags (migrator, proxy with god-mode, no timelock, or unlocked LP), I don’t negotiate with myself — it’s an instant pass.


• If only KYC is present but power is unlimited (no timelock, upgradable proxy, fee switches), I size tiny or wait for locks to go live. Accountability helps, but keys still rule.

Emotional check-in: launches are designed to trigger FOMO. My rule is simple — if the team can change the rules faster than I can react, I don’t play their game. KYC and Guarded Launch shift that balance closer to fair.

Pro tip I’ve learned the hard way:

• Set alerts on the timelock and locker addresses. If a queued transaction appears or LP unlock approaches, I want to know before Twitter does.


• Re-check powers after any upgrade or migration. A contract can start guarded and quietly gain new privileges later.

Now, how does this stack up against audits, scanners, and the quick tools I keep open in other tabs? And which combo has saved me the most money when seconds actually matter? Let’s compare them next.

RugDoc vs other tools: what I combine for better odds

I don’t trust green candles. I trust guardrails. RugDoc is my first pass, but I stack it with a few other tools so I’m not flying blind when the hype machine spins up.

“Trust, but verify. Then verify the verification.”

Why? Because automated scanners miss nuance, audits take time, and explorers never lie. When I layer them together, the false positives get filtered out and the real threats pop fast.

RugDoc vs audits

Audits are the heavyweight—methodical, line-by-line, and slow. RugDoc is the ringside cutman—fast, experienced, and brutally practical. I use them differently:

• Launching soon and I’m early? I lean on RugDoc’s human notes plus my on-chain checks. The turnaround is hours or days, not weeks.


• Meaningful capital or complex systems (bridges, vaults, options)? I want a reputable audit or two (think OpenZeppelin/Trail of Bits/Halborn) before I size up.

Real talk: I’ve seen audits greenlight contracts with wide-open admin powers because “intended by design,” while RugDoc flags the same permissions as a major risk if the team is anonymous and the timelock is missing. Context matters. Also, according to multiple yearly security reviews (see Chainalysis and SlowMist), a big chunk of DeFi losses still come from access control and upgrade issues—exactly the kind of patterns RugDoc calls out early.

RugDoc vs scanners

Automated scanners are my coffee. Quick hit, quick filter:

• Token Sniffer: Great for fast tax checks, honeypot tests, and code-similarity. Weak on proxies and cross-contract permissions. Forks can trigger false alarms, and proxy logic often fools it.


• GoPlus: Solid token risk API—blacklists, whitelists, mint/owner status, trading toggles, anti-whale. I like it for tax/blacklist sanity before I even open the code.


• De.Fi Scanner: Permission mapping and risky function flags across chains. Helpful for spotting sneaky admin switches and approvals.

How I fuse them with RugDoc:

• Scanners red, RugDoc quiet: Could be a proxy or fork false positive. I check the proxy admin and timelock on-chain (explorer) before passing judgment.


• Scanners green, RugDoc red: RugDoc probably saw a human-context issue (e.g., migrator, uncapped mint, or instant admin powers). I slow down or skip.


• Both green, but no locks or multisig: I still size small until I see a live timelock or liquidity lock.

Two quick examples I’ve personally run into:

• “Invisible” taxes: Token Sniffer said low tax, but GoPlus showed the owner could raise it to 25% and blacklist sellers. RugDoc’s notes confirmed the toggles existed. Hard pass.


• Proxy confusion: A farm triggered scanner alerts for “mint” and “owner can withdraw,” but EIP-1967 proxy + timelock + multisig made it acceptable. RugDoc marked Medium with clear conditions. I waited for the timelock to arm before entering.

Explorer checks I always run

The chain is the truth. I spend five minutes on explorers and it saves me five figures over time.

• Contract owner and timelock
  On Etherscan/BscScan, I look at owner(), getOwner(), or role-based access (OpenZeppelin AccessControl). If I see TimelockController or a Gnosis Safe multisig as the owner, good. If it’s an EOA with full privileges, that’s a no for me until it changes.


• LP lock status and unlock dates
  I open the pair contract, check holders, and see if LP is in a locker like Unicrypt or Team Finance. I want the percent locked and the exact unlock timestamp. Short locks + huge marketing = exit liquidity risk.


• Proxy patterns and admin
  If I spot TransparentUpgradeableProxy or EIP-1967 slots, I find the ProxyAdmin. Who controls it? Is there a timelock over the admin? A proxy with an EOA admin is a loaded gun.


• Recent privileged interactions
  I skim transactions for setFee, setTax, updateRouter, setTreasury, migrate, upgradeTo. Sudden admin changes before a “big partnership” announcement? I’m out first, questions later.


• Token taxes and transfer hooks
  I read the verified code for fee switches: tradingEnabled, maxTxAmount, isExcludedFromFees, blacklist/anti-MEV lists, and any _transfer overrides. Fee-on-transfer tokens wreck pools and can trap sellers if toggled mid-run.

Mini-case: I once watched a project flip the ProxyAdmin to a fresh EOA 10 minutes before upping fees. Scanners didn’t catch it in time; the explorer did. If you only adopt one habit from me, make it this: always check the last 20 privileged calls on-chain.

Community signals

Code is king, but teams leak truth in how they talk:

• Telegram/Discord tone: Do mods shut down tough questions? Are bans flying every time someone asks about the timelock or LP?


• Receipts, not vibes: I want links to on-chain actions: “We added a 24h timelock” followed by the transaction hash. Anything else is theater.


• Docs and roadmap: Clear emission math, unlock schedules, and admin roles beat “community-driven” fluff nine times out of ten.


• GitHub and deployer history: Recycled wallets, copy-paste repos with no commits, or brand-new deployers with god mode—those patterns rarely end well.

I’ve joined chats where “No FUD” meant “No questions.” Every single time, that ended badly for late entrants. Contrast that with teams that pin the multisig address, post the timelock delay, and share a Gnosis Safe transaction link—you feel the difference immediately.

If you’re still wondering “Which is better, RugDoc or Token Sniffer?” or “Does a Low risk label mean I can ape safely?”—I’m answering those exact questions next, in plain English, no fluff. Ready for the quick-fire FAQ?

FAQ: real questions people ask about RugDoc (answered simply)

What is RugDoc and how does it work?

RugDoc is a human-led reviewer team that checks DeFi contracts for known rug vectors and posts a risk rating with plain-English notes. They look at things like owner privileges, migrators, minting, fee traps, timelocks, and upgradeability. It’s designed for fast triage, not a deep formal audit.

Is RugDoc enough to avoid rugs?

No single tool is enough. RugDoc is strong at spotting contract-level traps early, but it can’t prevent social or operational failures, tokenomics blow-ups, or changes pushed after a review. Example: even “okay-looking” farms have rug-pulled later by flipping a proxy implementation or jacking taxes right after liquidity builds. I treat RugDoc as my first pass, then I verify on-chain and size positions accordingly.

How accurate are the ratings?

Generally solid for catching common patterns. You’ll often see flags like “no timelock” or “migrator present” catching problems before they turn ugly. But accuracy depends on what happens after the review. Teams can deploy new contracts, upgrade proxies, or move ownership. One real-world pattern I’ve seen: a farm launches “clean,” gets a decent rating, attracts TVL, then flips the proxy admin to a new address and updates logic. If you don’t monitor addresses and admins, any rating can go stale fast.

Does RugDoc do KYC or audits?

They do KYC and a Guarded Launch standard to promote safer setups (timelocks, LP locks, reduced privileges). They’re not a traditional audit firm. KYC increases accountability if fraud occurs, but it doesn’t prevent bugs, bad tokenomics, or risky admin powers.

Can projects game RugDoc?

Yes—most commonly by changing things after review. Tactics I’ve seen:

• New contracts post-review: submit one address for review, then deploy a slightly modified version at launch.


• Proxy swaps: ship with an upgradable proxy, then upgrade logic after TVL arrives.


• Tax flips: launch with reasonable taxes, then spike sell tax or add transfer hooks later.

Always compare the contract hash and admin/owner addresses on the explorer to what’s shown in the review. Treat reviews as a snapshot, not a guarantee.

How do I request a RugDoc review?

Projects can submit to RugDoc’s queue through their site. As a user, you just search the RugDoc database. If there’s no listing—or the listing is for a different contract version—assume the risk is higher until you can verify what changed.

RugDoc vs Token Sniffer—what’s better?

Different tools, different strengths. Token Sniffer is automated and quick; it’s useful for catching obvious honeypots and tax weirdness, but it can over-flag or miss context. RugDoc adds human review and commentary. I use both: automated scans to spot instant show-stoppers, RugDoc for nuanced risk notes that bots can’t explain.

Are “Low Risk” projects safe to ape?

Low risk means fewer obvious contract dangers, not “safe” or “profitable.” You still have market risk, team risk, and tokenomics risk. Historical reminder: even audited or “low-risk” code can fail if emissions are reckless or liquidity is thin. I still size small, watch ownership/timelock, and assume surprises can happen.

What do “migrator,” “timelock,” and “upgradable proxy” mean?

• Migrator: a method that can move user deposits to another contract. Classic rug vector from early MasterChef forks. If present, I’m out.


• Timelock: enforces a delay between announcing a change and executing it. Good for users, because it gives you time to react to fee hikes or admin power moves.


• Upgradable proxy: separates storage from logic so the code can be changed later. Powerful for bug fixes, but dangerous if a single dev or weak multisig controls the proxy admin. Many “after-the-fact” rugs happen here.

Does RugDoc cover NFT or cross-chain bridges?

Their focus is DeFi contracts (farms, tokens, pools). NFTs, games, and especially cross-chain bridges are more complex and often require specialized audits and ongoing monitoring. Bridges have historically been lucrative targets—industry reports showed billions lost in 2022 alone from bridge exploits. If a project touches bridging or custom NFT mechanics, I want:

• At least one solid audit from a reputable firm


• Clear disclosure of upgrade keys and validator/multisig setup


• On-chain evidence of timelocks and emergency procedures

So… is RugDoc worth using?

Absolutely—if you use it correctly. It’s one of the best speed-checks for contract risk, especially in new farms. I pair it with on-chain verification and my own position rules. In the next section, I’ll share the exact checklist I run before I click “approve”—want the one-liner that’s saved me the most money?

Action plan, pro tips, and what I recommend next

My RugDoc-powered safety checklist

I keep this short on purpose. It’s a repeatable pre-trade routine that takes me 3–7 minutes when I’m moving fast, longer if the project is fresh.

• Find the RugDoc page and read the rating notes. Don’t stop at the label—scan the specific flags they called out. If they mention owner privileges, taxes, or upgradeability, I highlight those in my notes.


• Verify contract address, owner, and timelock on-chain. Open the token and farm contracts on the right explorer (Etherscan/BscScan/etc.). Check “Contract” → “Read/Write as Proxy” and “Admin” if it’s a proxy. Confirm who owns what and whether a timelock controls key functions.


• Check LP locks and unlock dates. Look at the LP token holder page. If the LP isn’t locked or is locked for a laughable period, I walk. You can often find lock links in the project docs or check lockers like Team Finance or Unicrypt.


• Look for migrator, mint, upgradeability, and fee traps. If a migrator or unrestricted mint exists—even behind a proxy—that’s a no from me. Fee-on-transfer (“tax”) tokens get special caution because they break pools and can be switched.


• Note KYC/Guarded Launch presence. It’s a plus. It’s not a pass. Treat it as reduced social risk, not technical immunity.


• Decide position size and exit rules before entering. I write it down: size, profit target, stop-loss, and a “surprise = exit” rule. I’ll size down on Medium risk, skip High/Unsafe.

Bonus: I do a tiny test transaction before committing size. If a token has sneaky taxes or transfer limits, you’ll feel it instantly without paying full price for the lesson.

Fast sanity check rule: if I can’t explain in one sentence who can move my funds and how they’re protected (timelock/multisig), I don’t touch it.

When to walk away instantly

• High Risk / Not Eligible rating on RugDoc with owner powers intact. This is how classics like Compounder Finance ended—hidden migrator logic and full control. No thanks.


• No timelock + privileged admin on a proxy or main contract. Instant-change power is the fastest path to “whoops.”


• Unlocked or tiny liquidity relative to FDV. If $200k of liquidity backs an $8m cap, your exit door is a mouse hole.


• Anonymous team with zero track record and no locks/KYC. Anons can build great things, but if everything else is weak, I don’t subsidize the experiment.


• Aggressive or variable taxes (sell blocked, tax spikes). Remember the SQUID token fiasco? Transfer rules can be coded to trap exit liquidity.

If two or more of those show up together, I close the tab. There’s always another play.

Extra tip that saves me the most money

Exit first, ask questions later when contract control changes. If ownership moves, a new proxy admin appears, fees change, or a new contract gets announced post-launch, I reduce or close quickly and reassess from the sidelines.

Why I’m strict: most losses I see come from “it changed but I hoped it’d be fine.” A quick example—sudden admin shifts often precede emergency “upgrades” that rewrite fee logic or emissions. If it’s legit, you can re-enter after the dust settles. If it’s not, you kept your stack.

• Set explorer alerts: add contracts to your watchlist on Etherscan/BscScan and enable notifications for admin/ownership events.


• Track LP changes live via your preferred pair explorer (DexTools, GeckoTerminal). LP additions/removals tell you if the team is committing or backpedaling.

Wrap-up and next steps

Here’s the game plan I stick to:

• Use RugDoc as the first filter. Read the notes, not just the emoji or label.


• Confirm the critical stuff yourself. Owner, timelock, LP lock, upgradeability, taxes.


• Size like a pro. Position small when signals are mixed. Never bet the farm on a farm.


• Stay alert to changes. Surprises are exit signals until proven otherwise.

If you want me to put this framework to work on a few projects you’re eyeing, I’m game. Send me the tickers/contracts via Cryptolinks News and I’ll line up a side-by-side breakdown.

Scams are getting smarter—Chainalysis continues to show that fraud adapts fast—but so can we. Keep your checklist tight, your size disciplined, and your curiosity high. The edge isn’t finding the next 100x; it’s avoiding the landmines while compounding the wins you keep.