We went through dozens of projects on this chain by hand. The real ones publish their contracts and talk straight about risk. The empty ones hide both. Substance turns that difference into a number you can check in fifteen seconds, before you spend anything.
Is the source published so anyone can read what the contract does, and does the supply look normal for a Pons launch. An unverified contract is a black box, and the score says so.
How deep the pool is, how much really traded in the last day, how many wallets hold the token and what share the biggest ones control. Pools and burn addresses are left out of that math so the number means something.
Every token names the wallet that launched it. Substance follows that wallet and counts how many launches it made before this one. A wallet spraying tokens is the oldest pattern there is, and nothing else on this chain shows you that.
Whether there is a website at all, whether it answers, and whether it carries real documentation. In our research that last one was the single strongest signal that a team is serious.
Every scan shows its work: what passed, what failed, what could not be checked, and the raw points behind the score. The links go straight to the explorer so you can take our word for nothing.
Each check earns points against a published table. Nothing is hidden and nothing is weighted by who is asking.
When a source is down or a token is too new to have data, the check is skipped and the score is scaled over what actually ran.
No connect, no signature, no approval. Substance only reads public data, so using it can never cost you anything.
The feed watches the Pons factory and scores each token within a minute of it hitting the chain, then follows it through its first day so you can watch the number move as liquidity arrives or the pool stalls. Bonding progress toward graduation sits on every row.
Reading the feed…
Pons tokens trade in a locked pool and graduate once the paired WETH reaches the threshold. The feed shows how far along each one is.
When a wallet that already launched many tokens shows up again, the row says so before you have to find out yourself.
The score tells you whether the numbers hold up. It cannot tell you what the thing actually is. So we are building the other half: our own model reads the contract, the site, the documentation and the socials, then writes you a brief. What the project claims, what could be verified, and what could not.
It also gives its own read on whether this is real work or a costume, as a number you can argue with. That verdict sits next to the score, never inside it. The score is measured from chain data. The verdict is a judgement, and we label it as one.
No code launchpad for v4 hooks, immutable rules once the pool opens, a flat protocol fee and a split of pool fees with the creator.
Contracts exist on chain and the source is published. Documentation is real and specific about fees. Liquidity and holders match the claims.
No named team and no third party audit. The fee split is documented but not independently confirmed.