The most-forged tickers

Anyone can deploy a contract whose symbol() returns “AAPL”. This is how many did, ticker by ticker, counted by reading symbol() on chain for every candidate and putting each match through the same structural gate the verifier uses.

reading the impostor index…

Totals across every scanned ticker

loading

Loading the coverage note…

How to read a row

Every count here is a floor, and says so

The headline figure on a row is the scan’s own tally of contracts that claimed that ticker and failed the structural gate definitively - wrong runtime, wrong beacon, or not issued by the StockFactory. It is not the length of the stored list. The index keeps only the first few hundred impostors per ticker, ordered by exact symbol match and then by the explorer’s holder count, and a row whose list was truncated says list capped and prints how many more were found.

Where a scan ran out of explorer pages before the listing ran out of results, the tally itself is a lower bound and the row reads at least. Contracts that could not be read at all are never counted here: a failed read is not evidence of forgery, and a ticker that has never been scanned is absent from this board rather than shown as clean.

The board

Loading…

What “failed the gate” means

Structure, not names

A canonical token on this chain is a beacon proxy issued by one factory, and every one of them is byte-identical to the same 283-byte runtime. A contract that answers symbol() with a real ticker but does not have that runtime, does not delegate through the shared beacon, or does not appear in the StockFactory’s own deployment list, fails - and the chain answered definitively when it did. That is the gate counted on this page.

Names prove nothing and explorer labels are metadata. Holder counts are used on this page for one purpose only - deciding which impostors get stored when a ticker has more than the cap allows - and never as evidence.

A contract the chain could not answer for is unverified, not an impostor, and it is not on this board. Accusing a genuine token because a free RPC endpoint was busy would be worse than saying nothing at all.