Participating in a token launch involves risk that no vetting process fully eliminates. But there's a significant difference between informed risk and uninformed risk. This checklist is adapted from the internal review framework Tonstarter uses when evaluating project applications — simplified for use by participants who want to do their own assessment before committing capital.
Not every point will be verifiable for every project. Some information is genuinely hard to find. But the act of going through the checklist will quickly reveal whether a project is transparent and prepared — or whether it's hiding behind marketing language and vague promises.
Team and Identity
1. Can you verify the team's identities and credentials?
For doxxed teams: search LinkedIn, GitHub, and other professional records. Does the stated background match public record? If the CTO claims five years of blockchain development experience, their GitHub should show it. If the CEO claims to have led a successful previous venture, that venture should be findable.
For pseudo-anonymous teams: this doesn't automatically disqualify them. But the higher the anonymity, the higher the burden on other verification points. An anonymous team with no audited contracts and no previous track record is a significant red flag. An anonymous team with extensive on-chain history and community-contributed code is a different situation.
2. Do the listed advisors actually know they're advisors?
Logo farming — listing prominent names as advisors without their meaningful involvement — is rampant in Web3. The easiest check: search for the named advisors on Twitter/X and see if they've ever publicly mentioned or endorsed this project. If someone with 100,000 followers is listed as an "advisor" and has never tweeted about the project, skepticism is warranted. DM them directly if you can.
3. Does the team have a track record of completing what they start?
Previous projects matter — both the good ones and the bad ones. A team that shipped a small but functional product is meaningfully different from one applying with a whitepaper as their first deliverable. Look for GitHub repositories, deployed contracts, product demos, or any concrete evidence of execution capability.
Technology and Contracts
4. Is there a smart contract audit from a recognized firm?
Accepted audit providers include: CertiK, Trail of Bits, Quantstamp, Hacken, OpenZeppelin, and a handful of TON-specific security firms. If the audit is from a firm you can't easily find information about, treat it with skepticism. Find the actual audit report — not just the badge on the website. Read the findings section. Were any critical or high severity issues found? How were they resolved?
5. Does the technical documentation match the marketing claims?
Projects often describe their technology in ways that don't match what's actually built. Common mismatches: claiming "decentralized" governance while the contract has a single admin key; claiming "non-custodial" while funds pass through a multi-sig controlled by the team; claiming "audited" when only specific contracts (not the main protocol) were audited.
Read the technical documentation skeptically. If claims can't be verified with contract addresses and on-chain data, treat them as aspirational until proven otherwise.
6. Is there a working product or a credible prototype?
A whitepaper describes what a project intends to build. A prototype demonstrates they can build it. These are not the same thing. Projects at the pure whitepaper stage carry substantially more execution risk. Weigh this against the risk-reward profile you're accepting.
Tokenomics and Incentives
7. What are the vesting schedules for team and investor tokens?
Find the tokenomics section of the whitepaper and read the vesting table carefully. Key questions: What percentage of total supply is allocated to team and early investors? When do those tokens unlock relative to the IDO date? How does the unlock schedule affect circulating supply in the first 90 days?
Warning signs: team tokens unlocking at or near TGE; investor tokens at 3-5x IDO price unlocking within 30 days; total insider allocation above 30% of total supply.
8. Does the token have a demand mechanism beyond speculation?
What makes someone want to hold this token 6 months after TGE? Governance rights matter if governance decisions are meaningful. Protocol fee distribution to stakers creates real yield demand. Utility tokens that are genuinely required to use a high-demand service have intrinsic demand. Tokens that exist primarily to appreciate in price have no floor mechanism when sentiment turns.
9. Is the initial circulating supply reasonable?
Very low circulating supply at TGE (below 5-10% of total supply) creates artificial scarcity that inflates the initial price — and creates predictable sell pressure when unlocks happen. Very high circulating supply at TGE (above 80%) limits upside but also limits the dump risk from future unlocks. Know what you're buying and what the supply schedule looks like over 24 months.
Liquidity and Market Structure
10. Is DEX liquidity locked, and for how long?
Ask specifically: where will DEX liquidity be seeded at TGE, how much, and is the LP locked? If it's locked, verify the lock address on the relevant blockchain explorer. A real lock has a contract address you can check. A stated lock without a verifiable address is a promise, not a protection.
11. Who are the market makers, and what are their incentives?
Market makers provide liquidity in exchange for token loans and/or fees. Their incentive structures affect how they behave: market makers with token loans that aren't returned are effectively short the token and have no incentive to support the price. Professional market makers working on fee arrangements are better aligned. Understanding this matters for estimating how well-supported trading will be post-TGE.
Post-Launch Accountability
12. What does the launchpad or project team commit to after TGE?
Is there a defined roadmap with specific deliverables and timeframes? Does the launchpad have a post-launch engagement commitment (not just a badge on their website)? Is there a public communication channel where the project team is accountable to the community? Are there performance commitments tied to vesting — team tokens that vest faster if milestones are hit, slower if they're missed?
A project that makes specific post-TGE commitments and ties team token vesting to milestone delivery is structurally better aligned with participants than one that simply promises good things.
Using This Checklist
Work through each point before participating in any token launch — including launches on Tonstarter. We do this work as part of our vetting process, but our review is not a replacement for your own judgment. We can miss things. Our incentives, while aligned, are not identical to yours.
If a project can't answer most of these questions with specific, verifiable information, that's important data. The inability or unwillingness to be transparent is itself a signal worth taking seriously.
Questions about a specific project? Reach us at [email protected]. We don't discuss non-public information about projects under review, but we can help you find publicly available materials you might have missed.
