cryptosnif
Decentrawood (DEOD)
Documentary contract0xe77abb1e75d2913b2076dd16049992ffeaca5235
Unrated · 0% Evidence coverage
Operational strength remains unproven; unrated with 0% scoring coverage.
Documentary mechanisms alone cannot establish actual network behavior or investment outcomes.
Inspect the evidenceThe source review explains documented mechanisms. Independent network checks remain pending.
Promise
This dossier examines the documented purpose and mechanisms of Decentrawood (DEOD) on the Polygon network. The goal is to evaluate the claims made in the pinned Trust Wallet registry entry against the available documentary evidence. We assess whether the stated aims align with verified operational data or remain unverified assertions.
Established facts
The primary source is a pinned Trust Wallet integration record for the Polygon network. This document identifies Decentrawood with the symbol Deod and the documentary contract address 0xe77abb1e75d2913b2076dd16049992ffeaca5235. The record specifies 18 decimal places, which defines how amounts are represented internally but does not measure supply or value. The community-maintained description labels Decentrawood as a metaverse token designed for enhanced scalability and efficiency in virtual worlds. These statements are attributed registry claims. They do not constitute independently established issuer statements or operational observations. The Trust Wallet Assets README confirms this is a community-maintained registry where anyone can submit assets. Inclusion does not imply a direct partnership with listed projects. The ERC-20 specification provides the standard interface for fungible tokens, defining functions like totalSupply, balanceOf, transfers, and allowances. An allowance permits a named spender to use a specified amount. A wallet ERC20 label establishes no independently checked compliance or actual deployed implementation. No live network observation was performed during this review.
Unknowns
Present independent control, beneficial ownership, usage patterns, client adoption, supply distribution, concentration, liquidity, and complete incident history remain unverified. The dossier may explain stated aims with attribution, but no deployed bytecode, controller permissions, or safety mechanisms were checked. The generic application family identifies only a documentary token subject. Its economic niche and scoring criteria remain unclassified. No token transaction was performed. The active status is a metadata label without live-network validation. Missing evidence prevents verification of current program behavior or investment outcomes.
Consequences
Documentary mechanisms alone cannot establish actual network behavior or investment outcomes. Relying solely on registry entries risks conflating promotional claims with operational reality. Users may assume security or functionality based on inclusion in a community registry, which lacks independent verification of deployment or control. The absence of verified data means any assessment of risk or utility is speculative. Without independent dated network observations, the gap between stated purpose and actual function remains wide.
Verdict
Operational strength remains unproven. The asset is unrated with 0% scoring coverage. Critical dimensions including identity, supply, and control lack essential evidence. The verdict is unfavorable due to the absence of independent verification, not because of proven fraud or failure. The dossier highlights the limits of documentary-only reviews. No public admission of operational status exists. The calculated score reflects zero coverage across all dimensions.
What would change it
Reproduced identity checks, independent dated network observations, and criterion-specific evidence would alter this assessment. Verification of deployed bytecode, controller permissions, and actual usage patterns is required. Calibration and editorial review following independent data collection would allow for a scored evaluation. Until such evidence is provided, the asset remains in an unknown state regarding its operational integrity and economic function.
Each check earns its result.
| Check | Weight | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Exact asset identityEssential | 3% | Verification pending |
| Observable use | 15% | Verification pending |
| Economic role of the token | 10% | Verification pending |
| Supply mechanismsEssential | 10% | Verification pending |
| Ownership concentration | 8% | Verification pending |
| Value capture | 7% | Verification pending |
| Control powersEssential | 10% | Verification pending |
| Security verification | 7% | Verification pending |
| Decision process | 8% | Verification pending |
| Accountability | 7% | Verification pending |
| Incident history | 6% | Verification pending |
| Operational continuity | 4% | Verification pending |
| Execution conditions | 5% | Verification pending |
Family-specific checks: Observable usage, token necessity and dependencies.
Inspect the evidence
Sources behind this analysis
Trust Wallet: captured Polygon record for Decentrawood
The pinned Trust Wallet Polygon integration record names Decentrawood with symbol Deod, documentary address 0xe77abb1e75d2913b2076dd16049992ffeaca5235 and 18 decimal places. Decimal places concern amount representation and do not measure supply or value. The record labels the entry POLYGON and active. Its community-maintained description states: "Decentrawood is a metaverse token, designed and built on the Polygon network for enhanced scalability and efficiency in virtual worlds." Every project, economic, partnership, performance, supply, date and adoption statement within this quoted description is an attributed registry claim, not an independently established issuer statement or operational observation. The dossier may explain those stated aims with that attribution. No deployed implementation, rights, ownership, safety, supply, use or investment outcome was checked. The generic application family identifies only a documentary token subject; its economic niche and scoring criteria remain unclassified and unknown. The general ERC-20 specification is separate from this token implementation.
Inspect the primary source ↗Trust Wallet: pinned Polygon directory context
The pinned Trust Wallet polygon network-context record identifies the community registry directory for Polygon. This supplies documentary network context for entries in the same pinned directory. Promotional statements, network performance, consensus behavior, current deployment and control are not verified or admitted from this context.
Inspect the primary source ↗Trust Wallet Assets: README.md (bbe582d25a22)
The Trust Wallet Assets README describes a community-maintained registry of token information and logos across blockchains, used by the wallet and other projects. It says additional token information is optional and unavailable on-chain. Anyone can submit assets, and inclusion does not imply a direct partnership with the listed projects. It also explicitly excludes brand-new tokens from submissions, so this source cannot provide an exhaustive inventory of recent launches. The README states that its scripts and documentation use the MIT license. This source is the wallet project's own integration registry, maintained with community submissions. Its project descriptions are documentary claims from that registry, not independently verified issuer statements or operational observations. The active status is a metadata label, with no live-network validation. No deployment bytecode, controller, supply, reserve, use, concentration, liquidity, security audit, incident completeness or investment return has been established.
Inspect the primary source ↗Ethereum ERC-20: pinned token interface specification
The pinned ERC-20 specification describes a standard interface for fungible tokens in smart contracts. It defines totalSupply and balanceOf reads, transfers, third-party transfers after authorization, approval and remaining allowance. An allowance is the amount a named spender may use; a repeated approval overwrites that amount. The specification says callers must handle a false transfer result and describes Transfer and Approval events. Name, symbol and decimal-place metadata are optional in the standard. These interface requirements describe what a conforming implementation should do. A wallet ERC20 label establishes no independently checked compliance, actual deployed implementation, controller permissions, token use, supply or security. No token transaction was performed in this review. Copyright and related rights are waived under CC0.
Inspect the primary source ↗Only original summaries are distributed. Licensed raw market data stays private.