What we learned scanning 558 new Solana tokens
November 1, 2026 · 5 min read · by the Rugsight team
Rugsight's new-token feed picks up recently listed Solana tokens from public new-token, trending and top-traded lists every 30 minutes, and runs the same automated risk check on each one. Only tokens with at least $5k of liquidity at discovery enter the feed, so the most obvious dead launches are already filtered out.
In our first snapshot we looked at 100 tokens from a single day. This post uses everything in the feed database as of November 1, 2026: 558 tokens, first seen between October 31, 02:17 UTC and November 1, 18:00 UTC (about 40 hours). Every number below comes straight from that table. It's still a short window, so treat it as a picture of these two days, not a law.
The headline numbers
| Check | Tokens | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Mint or freeze authority still active | 3 | 0.5% |
| Created with Token-2022 | 533 | 95.5% |
| Top 10 real wallets hold over 50% of supply | 183 of 557 | 32.9% |
| Top 10 real wallets hold over 80% of supply | 68 of 557 | 12.2% |
| One wallet holds over 20% of supply | 188 of 557 | 33.8% |
| Liquidity under $10k, or none detected | 302 | 54.1% |
| Liquidity of $50k or more | 26 | 4.7% |
| Graded D or F | 190 | 34.1% |
| Median Rugsight score | 65 / 100 |
One token had no holder data available, so the holder rows use 557 tokens. The median top-10 share was 24.1%, after removing pools, bonding curves, programs and burn addresses.
Grades and scores
| Grade | Tokens |
|---|---|
| A | 1 |
| B | 269 |
| C | 98 |
| D | 164 |
| F | 26 |
The average score was 59.3. Only one token earned an A. That's expected: every token in this feed is new by definition, and 424 of them (76%) had started trading less than 24 hours before the check, which costs points on its own.
Scores cluster at the two ends: 270 tokens scored 70 or more, 190 scored under 50, and 98 landed between 50 and 69. What separates the two clusters is almost entirely the two signals in the next sections.
Finding 1: authority checks almost never fire any more
Only 3 of 558 tokens still had an active mint or freeze authority: one with both, one with only mint authority, and one with only freeze authority. In our 100-token snapshot the count was zero.
Launchpads now revoke both authorities by default, so "mint revoked, freeze revoked" is true for nearly every new memecoin. Those two checks still matter, because when they fire the token is effectively under one person's control (the token with both authorities scored 0). But a green tick on them tells you very little about a new launch.
Token-2022 is now the default, not the exception: 533 of 558 tokens used it. 526 of those carried only the two metadata extensions (metadataPointer and tokenMetadata), which are harmless. The riskier extensions were rare:
- Transfer fee: 6 tokens (2 of them at 5% or more per transfer)
- Permanent delegate: 1
- Transfer hook: 1
- Pausable: 1
So the "hidden Token-2022 trap" exists, but in this sample it appeared in about 1% of tokens.
Finding 2: concentration and liquidity are where the risk is
With authorities out of the picture, almost all of the risk sat in two places:
- Concentration. A third of tokens (32.9%) had more than half their supply in the ten largest real wallets, and 12.2% had more than 80%. In 188 tokens a single wallet held over 20% of the supply.
- Liquidity. 137 tokens (24.6%) had under $10k of pool liquidity and 165 (29.6%) had none detected at check time. Of those 165, 77 were still on the pump.fun bonding curve and hadn't graduated to a DEX pool yet. Only 26 tokens had $50k or more.
The combination is the pattern to watch. 135 tokens (24.2%) had both more than half the supply in ten wallets and under $10k of liquidity (or none). Every one of those 135 was graded D or F. No special permission is needed to rug a token like that: the largest holders just sell into a pool that can't absorb it.
Finding 3: where a token comes from matters a lot
The feed pulls from several public lists, and the results differ sharply by source:
| Discovery list | Tokens | Avg score | Top 10 over 50% | Graded D or F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jupiter recent (brand-new listings) | 252 | 47.1 | 63.9% | 64.3% |
| Jupiter top traded | 171 | 69.8 | 2.3% | 5.3% |
| Jupiter top trending | 49 | 66.8 | 20.4% | 22.4% |
| DEX Screener profiles | 79 | 69.1 | 8.9% | 10.1% |
| DEX Screener boosts | 7 | 76.1 | 14.3% | 0% |
Brand-new listings are where most of the risk lives: almost two in three were graded D or F, and 123 of the 252 had no measurable liquidity. Tokens that already show up in top-traded lists have, by definition, survived long enough to attract real volume, and they look far healthier on these checks.
This is a survivorship effect, not a quality badge. A top-traded token can still dump. But if you're looking at something minutes after launch, the base rate of red flags is much higher.
What these checks don't cover
The checks read public on-chain and market data at the moment of the check. They don't cover bundled launches (many wallets funded by one buyer), the deployer's history, LP lock status, social signals, or anything off-chain. A B grade on a six-hour-old token means "no technical trap found yet", not "safe". The full method is in how to check a Solana token for rug-pull risk, and the holder method is in why "top 10 holders" is often wrong.
Get the data
- Live feed: /new, refreshed every 30 minutes.
- JSON:
/api/new, with the 24-hour stats. - Atom feed:
/new.xml. - Check any mint for free on the home page, or in Telegram with @rugsight_bot.
- Developers: npm and PyPI clients, the MCP server and the x402 API.
All free, no API key. We'll rerun these numbers as the feed grows.
Automated checks of public on-chain and market data at the time shown. Not an accusation and not financial advice.