cryptosnif
Metahero (HERO)
Documentary contract0xd40bedb44c081d2935eeba6ef5a3c8a31a1bbe13
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 Metahero (HERO) on the eip155:56 network. The scope is limited to the identity metahero-wallet-smartchain and the documentary contract 0xd40bedb44c081d2935eeba6ef5a3c8a31a1bbe13. This identification establishes only the subject of this review; it does not verify deployed bytecode, current controllers, or live network operation. We examine the stated aims as recorded in community-maintained registries, while clearly separating those claims from independent operational verification.
Established facts
The pinned Trust Wallet BNB Smart Chain integration record names Metahero with symbol HERO and a documentary address of 0xd40bedb44c081d2935eeba6ef5a3c8a31a1bbe13. The record specifies 18 decimal places, which concern amount representation and do not measure supply or value. The entry is labeled BEP20 and active. BEP20 refers to the token standard used on BNB Smart Chain, which is functionally similar to ERC-20. The registry description states the project is a Next-Gen Deflationary Real Utility Token Coupled with Ultra-HD Metascanning Technology. 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 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, and the source explicitly excludes brand-new tokens from submissions. Therefore, this source cannot provide an exhaustive inventory of recent launches. The generic ERC-20 specification defines a standard interface for fungible tokens, including totalSupply, balanceOf, transfers, and allowances. An allowance is the amount a named spender may use. These interface requirements describe what a conforming implementation should do, but a wallet ERC20 label establishes no independently checked compliance, actual deployed implementation, controller permissions, or security. No token transaction was performed in this review.
Unknowns
Present independent control, beneficial ownership, usage, client adoption, supply, concentration, liquidity and complete incident history remain unverified. The dossier may explain stated aims with attribution, but no deployed implementation, rights, safety, use or investment outcome was checked. The general ERC-20 specification is separate from this specific token implementation. Documentary address matching establishes no current program behavior, deployed control or safety. The scoring coverage is 0%, resulting in an unrated status. No public admission of operational data exists. Critical missing elements include identity verification, supply confirmation, and control structure analysis.
Consequences
Documentary mechanisms alone cannot establish actual network behavior or investment outcomes. Relying solely on registry labels like BEP20 or active status provides no assurance of functional correctness, security, or economic viability. The absence of independent network observations means that promotional statements, consensus behavior, current deployment details, and control structures are neither verified nor admitted by this source. Users cannot infer operational strength or risk profile from these documentary records alone. The lack of verified supply, concentration, or liquidity data prevents any assessment of market impact or holder risk. Consequently, the project remains opaque regarding its actual technical and economic reality.
Verdict
Operational strength remains unproven. The asset is unrated with 0% scoring coverage. The documentary record provides only a community-submitted label and description, lacking independent verification of code, control, or usage. No audit, price target, return forecast, or affiliate recommendation is provided. The verdict is based strictly on the absence of evidence required for a scored assessment. The project's claims regarding deflationary mechanics, utility, and technology are unverified assertions found only in the registry description. Without independent confirmation, these claims hold no evidentiary weight in this dossier.
What would change it
Reproduced identity checks, independent dated network observations, and criterion-specific evidence would be required to alter this verdict. Specifically, verification of deployed bytecode against the documented address, confirmation of controller permissions, and analysis of actual token flows would establish operational reality. Independent audits of the smart contract code and transparent reporting of supply distribution and liquidity reserves would address current unknowns. Calibration and editorial review following such evidence collection would allow for a scored assessment. Until such independent verification occurs, the unrated status and acknowledgment of significant unknowns remain necessary.
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 BNB Smart Chain record for Metahero
The pinned Trust Wallet BNB Smart Chain integration record names Metahero with symbol HERO, documentary address 0xd40bedb44c081d2935eeba6ef5a3c8a31a1bbe13 and 18 decimal places. Decimal places concern amount representation and do not measure supply or value. The record labels the entry BEP20 and active. Its community-maintained description states: "Next-Gen Deflationary Real Utility Token Coupled with Ultra-HD Metascanning Technology" 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 BNB Smart Chain directory context
The pinned Trust Wallet smartchain network-context record identifies the community registry directory for BNB Smart Chain. 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.