The GREAT Safe Moon Comment Scandal
Note: this article is not investment advice. Do your own research, and only invest what you can afford to lose in any project.
Safe Moon’s creators claim that they launched their token with a long-term vision. Lots of investors believed them. While we can’t judge Safe Moon’s intent, we can look at its code.
Read it yourself here, and you’ll see something right away that seems off. You don’t even need to be a programmer. We’ll paste it below:
These lines, right at the beginning of Safe Moon’s contract, are meant to explain the contract’s function. Yet they seem to refer to a completely different project called “BEE.”
The Safe Moon team forked their code from a different project’s contract and didn’t bother to change the comments. On line 16, it suggests that a 3% fee adds to the liquidity pool. The fee is actually 5%, and it doesn’t auto-add to a liquidity pool.
The remainder of the comment section is equally misleading.
Now, one might argue, “Hey, these are just comments! It doesn’t matter what they say.”
To that, we have 2 replies:
- Because a Smart Contract can never be altered, most investors would expect developers to carefully review their code before they deploy it. In our opinion, this kind of carelessness is a warning sign to investors. If more people knew where to look, it’s unlikely so many would entrust their money to the Safe Moon project.
- The comments hide functional/trust issues as well. For example, the LP tokens, from what we can tell, go directly to a personal wallet — the wallet of the individual who owns the contract. From there, the owner can do whatever they want with them; sell them, transfer them, lock them, or any combination of the above.
These are our thoughts, but we’d like to know what you see when you look at the Safe Moon contract. Do you see a solid investment opportunity, or a hastily launched project that happened to take off?
At SAFERmoon, we do our best to avoid these kinds of errors. You can learn more at SAFERmoon.net.