No single pattern on this list proves misconduct. Most have an innocent explanation most of the time. What they share is a simple property: each is specific enough to check, rather than a general feeling that something is wrong. This guide sets out ten of them, in the kind of detail worth having before you’re trying to work it out under pressure.
Communication and promotion
Founder withdrawal. A founder still building usually keeps talking, even when the news is bad. When updates thin out, social channels go dormant, and trading volume falls away with them, it often means the team has moved on before telling its investors. The specific thing worth checking isn’t silence alone, it’s silence with no account of why.
Manufactured demand. Coordinated posting, undisclosed promotional partnerships, and promoters whose own wallets received the token before they promoted it are all visible without any special access. Genuine enthusiasm and paid enthusiasm can look identical from a single post. Timing, and disclosure, are what tell them apart.
Distribution and timing
Delayed distribution. A public distribution date that slips, while insiders, advisors or OTC counterparties appear to already be trading, is a sequence worth examining closely. On-chain timestamps are public, even where the counterparties behind a wallet are not always easy to identify without further work.
Token non-delivery. A stalled snapshot, a rescheduled distribution, and a wallet that never receives anything are not the same as an ordinary delay. On-chain records make it possible to confirm, directly, whether an allocation was ever made at all.
Post-TGE performance. A sustained gap between the price a private round paid and the price the public listing opened at often reflects dilution, allocations, or unlock terms that were never disclosed at the time of investment. Cap tables and on-chain unlock data usually resolve the question quickly, without needing to interpret anyone’s intent.
What was said versus what was true
Launch promises. Exchange relationships, launchpad commitments or listing timelines presented as confirmed, when they weren’t, leave a gap between what was said and what happened. That gap is a recognised pattern in securities enforcement, not simply a missed target.
Parallel raises. A bridge round, OTC allocation or side letter offered on terms better than yours, and never disclosed to you, is one of the clearest signs worth examining closely. Later capital coming in on materially better terms is often a sign the project’s position was weaker than it was represented to be.
Terms changed. A valuation, allocation, vesting schedule, discount rate or liquidation term quietly revised after your SAFT or side letter was signed, sometimes benefiting founders or insiders at the expense of earlier holders, means you may be bound to terms you never agreed to. What makes this pattern worth testing for is timing: the terms changed only after it was too late for you to walk away.
What happened to the business itself
Management-driven loss. A decline driven by market conditions alone is not something we pursue. Repeated strategic reversals, unexplained spending, or decisions that served the team more than the business itself can turn an ordinary loss into a matter worth investigating.
Business pivot. A rebrand, a migration, or a new token swap that quietly replaces the original asset with different supply, governance or economics is not the same investment you funded, whatever the update calls it. Original raise materials and any migration terms are usually straightforward to compare directly.
Using this list
None of these patterns need to appear together to be worth raising. Several appearing at once is a stronger signal than any one alone, but a single serious instance, particularly the ones involving a direct comparison between two documents, can be enough on its own.
If any of this looks familiar and you’re holding documents you’re unsure how to read, we’ll review them as part of an assessment. You don’t need to interpret them first.