RootData exposes five major project information flaws; financing data is questionable and warrants caution

HashBandit · 2026-01-23T03:58:12+00:00

Web3 Asset Tracking Platform RootData Warns that the data authenticity of several projects (such as ByteNova) is questionable, requiring them to submit updated information to improve transparency scores. The scoring system has 5 levels, with lower scores indicating higher risk. RootData will continue to monitor opaque projects and urges projects to actively improve their information to protect investors and their own reputation.

HashBandit

2026-01-23 03:58:12

Abstract generation in progress

【Crypto Push】Recently, the Web3 asset tracking platform RootData issued an important alert on social media. Funding information for projects like ByteNova, Endless, Tune.FM, Ark of Panda, and Chainge has encountered issues, raising doubts about data authenticity. RootData urges these project teams to promptly submit or update relevant information on the platform to improve their transparency scores and reassure investors.

In fact, RootData’s transparency scoring system is quite sophisticated. It mainly measures how complete and timely a project’s information disclosure is. Ranging from Grade A to F, with five levels in total, lower scores indicate less transparent information disclosure. Projects with low scores are riskier, and investors should be especially cautious.

According to RootData, they plan to continue monitoring and publicly exposing “black box” projects with incomplete core information. This means that if your project lacks necessary disclosures, it is likely to be recorded, which is not good news for the project’s reputation and fundraising efforts. Therefore, for projects in the fundraising process, proactively improving information disclosure and increasing transparency scores is not only a way to protect investors but also to safeguard your own reputation.

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
3
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

not_your_keys

· 6h ago

Here comes the套路 again, why are these projects all on the list Information flaws have long been a common occurrence, who still really pays attention to those ratings Doubts about funding data? I just want to know who dares to really investigate That's why I only trust my own wallet It's just another transparency score trick, I've seen through it long ago

View OriginalReply0

ChainSherlockGirl

· 6h ago

Hey, these five projects have been directly exposed for falsifying funding data. Based on my analysis, the story behind it might be more complicated. Doubts about the funding information? I just want to know if there's a story behind the wallet address. Transparency scores from A to F, low scores mean high risk. Onlookers, it's time to wake up. If these projects don't quickly update their information, investors will be running away in minutes. To be continued... RootData's alert this time came just in time, or else someone would have paid the IQ tax again.

View OriginalReply0

LuckyBlindCat

· 7h ago

These five projects probably just want to play hide and seek. They can even mess up the funding data, and still boast about how transparent they are? Another bunch of F-grade projects, truly unbelievable. Where's the promised information disclosure? Is this your attitude? RootData directly called you out this time, it seems they're really fed up. I don't believe this garbage data at all, better stay away. Funding information doesn't match up, and you still want to harvest the leeks?

View OriginalReply0