2026-01-18 08:22:14

Many people ask when entering new cryptocurrencies: Will the project team run away with the money?

The core of this question actually lies in how the permission structure is designed. A good project does this — directly locks key fund permissions in smart contracts, initial liquidity is not controlled by any individual, and all operation records are clearly written on the blockchain, allowing anyone to verify.

In other words, the project operates entirely based on code rules rather than relying on human promises. This way, even if the project team tries to cheat, they first have to crack the code. This transparency provides the greatest assurance for investors — you can directly see the state of liquidity, rather than just taking their word for it.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SandwichVictim

· 16h ago

The words sound nice, but haven't I seen enough contract vulnerabilities... Code is written by humans too, and there have been flash loan attacks before.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatorFlash

· 16h ago

Well said, but on-chain transparency does not equal a reliable project. I've seen too many smart contract codes that are flawless on paper but still get hacked... Permission locking is just a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. The key is whether there is an audit report.

View OriginalReply0

SpeakWithHatOn

· 16h ago

That's right. Checking the transparency of the contract is definitely more reliable than listening to project teams boast.

View OriginalReply0

ZenZKPlayer

· 16h ago

That's true, but out of the ten "good projects" I've seen, eight of them ended up having issues in the end, because human nature is something that code can't control.

View OriginalReply0