cryptosnif
RYOSHI TOKEN (V2) (RYOSHI)
Documentary contract0xb350aebaedb1ed3269b0e25d5e593a9bb4b9f9d5
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 RYOSHI TOKEN (V2) (RYOSHI) on the eip155:56 network. The analysis focuses on the pinned registry entry for contract 0xb350aebaedb1ed3269b0e25d5e593a9bb4b9f9d5 to determine if the stated aims align with verifiable operational evidence.
Established facts
The Trust Wallet community-maintained registry lists RYOSHI TOKEN with the symbol RYOSHI under the BEP20 label, which denotes a token standard compatible with the BNB Smart Chain network. The record specifies an 18 decimal place precision, a technical parameter defining how amounts are represented in the smart contract interface, not a measure of total supply or market value. The registry description characterizes the asset as a deflationary, community-driven meme token that implements a 10 percent burn mechanism from every transaction to decrease supply. This description is an attributed claim within the community registry and does not constitute an independently verified issuer statement or operational observation. The ERC-20 specification defines the underlying interface requirements for fungible tokens, including functions for reading balances and executing transfers, but this standard alone establishes no compliance or safety for any specific implementation. The registry context confirms that inclusion does not imply a direct partnership with the listed projects and that additional token information is optional and unavailable on-chain.
Unknowns
Independent verification of deployed bytecode, current controllers, beneficial ownership, actual usage patterns, supply concentration, liquidity depth, and complete incident history remains unverified. No live network observation was performed to confirm the execution of the stated burn mechanism or the integrity of the contract code. The dossier identifies only the documented subject; its economic niche and scoring criteria remain unclassified.
Consequences
Documentary mechanisms and registry labels alone cannot establish actual network behavior, investment outcomes, or security guarantees. Without independent dated network observations, the claimed deflationary mechanics and community status cannot be validated against real-world deployment. The absence of verified control and supply data prevents any assessment of risk or utility.
Verdict
Operational strength remains unproven. The asset holds an unrated status with zero percent scoring coverage due to missing essential evidence regarding identity, supply, and control. No public admission of operational verification exists.
What would change it
Reproduced identity checks, independent dated network observations, and criterion-specific evidence regarding contract execution and ownership would be required to move beyond this documentary assessment. Calibration and editorial review following such verification could alter the unrated status.
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 RYOSHI TOKEN
The pinned Trust Wallet BNB Smart Chain integration record names RYOSHI TOKEN with symbol RYOSHI, documentary address 0xb350aebaedb1ed3269b0e25d5e593a9bb4b9f9d5 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: "Ryoshi is a deflationary, community driven meme token that came to take over the meme game. With 10% burn from every transaction that decreases the supply and increases the demand you can kick back and watch your RYOSHI value grow." 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.