ChainSift checks crypto projects before you put money into them.
Automated scanners answer one question: is this contract technically dangerous? That question matters, and there are good free tools for it. But most people don't lose money to a malicious contract. They lose it to a perfectly clean contract run by people who were never going to deliver.
So we look at the other side of the problem: who is behind the project, how the token is actually distributed, what the documentation promises, whether the legal structure exists at all — and whether any of it holds up when you check.
ChainSift is run by one person, working under the name Bystrise.
That is the same name here, on Discord, and on GitHub — deliberately. In crypto a pseudonym is normal, but a pseudonym is only worth something if it is continuous and accountable. Every assessment published here stays published, with the date it was made. When we get something wrong, the record shows it.
We publish critical assessments of live projects. Some of them are run by people who do not take criticism gracefully. That is the reason for the pseudonym, and it is the only reason.
One person, not a firm. We would rather say that plainly than invent a team page — inventing a team is one of the things we flag in other projects.
That is the whole difference between this and most of the audit industry. When the entity being reviewed is also the entity paying for the review, the review is worth less — everyone in crypto knows this, and it is why "audited by" badges stopped meaning much.
Projects can buy specific services from us — verification of facts, monitoring of their own contracts, documentation review. They cannot buy a score, they cannot buy a better score, and they cannot buy silence. The exact rules are on our Policy page, including what happens when a project pays us and the result comes out badly.
Every ChainSift Score is a number out of 100, built from five categories worth 20 points each: Team, Tokenomics, Technology, Red Flags, and Legal. Every point is traceable to a specific finding with a source and a date.
We publish the full method openly, including where it is weak, on the Methodology page.
If you are a project and believe we published something inaccurate, write to that address with the correction and evidence. We publish corrections, and we say what changed and when.