Historical article. Read its sources and date in context; retrospective analysis does not prove advance detection.
A WAY TO READ THE EVIDENCE
From what happened to what you can learn.
Use these four questions as you read. Expand a step for context.
01
Timeline
What happened, and when?
Read context +
Keep event dates separate from the date a study was written or reviewed. Follow the sequence before drawing a conclusion.
02
Public record
What supports the account?
Read context +
Check the linked source, its date and the distinction between a reported claim, an allegation and a documented finding.
03
Signals
What was visible at the time?
Read context +
Separate historical evidence from a retrospective interpretation. A current assessment cannot establish what a tool would have returned years earlier.
04
Lessons
What can you check next?
Read context +
Use the case as a learning aid alongside the methodology and its limitations. No signal or case study guarantees a token’s safety.
ABOUT THIS LIBRARY
Context makes the case useful.
StableHub forensic case studies of major rug pull events. Each study documents the timeline, the public record, the on-chain signals visible in advance, and how the Rug Risk Score would have graded the token.
The hub’s original description refers to retrospective grading. Read that as a framework discussion, not proof that a live tool predicted a historical event. The interactive checker and token-page publisher also have different data scopes.
About the study and its scope
This hub provides browsing and reading guidance. Each linked study has its own sources and review date; read its factual, legal and scoring claims in that context.