Is Ethereum Name Service a scam?
LOW RISK · 28/100Ethereum Name Service (ENS) has an automated risk score of 28/100 — low risk. Ethereum Name Service has a dangerously concentrated supply: only ~41% is in free float, meaning an estimated ~59% is controlled by a small number of wallets. This is the setup behind single-hand price manipulation — pinning the price to drain leveraged traders before an abrupt dump. Down 95% from ATH — severe collapse, most investors are deeply underwater. Over half the supply (~59%) is held off-market — a single coordinated seller can dictate the price.
Automated assessment · updated 1 August 2026
Ethereum Name Service
ensLOW RISK$4.240
-1.30% (24h)
updating live price…
Risk Assessment
Risk Score
LOW RISK
Ethereum Name Service has a dangerously concentrated supply: only ~41% is in free float, meaning an estimated ~59% is controlled by a small number of wallets. This is the setup behind single-hand price manipulation — pinning the price to drain leveraged traders before an abrupt dump. Down 95% from ATH — severe collapse, most investors are deeply underwater. Over half the supply (~59%) is held off-market — a single coordinated seller can dictate the price.
Here is what the public data shows about Ethereum Name Service, ordered by how strongly each factor contributes to the score:
- Price Collapse: Down 95% from ATH — severe collapse, most investors are deeply underwater.
- Supply Structure: Over half the supply (~59%) is held off-market — a single coordinated seller can dictate the price.
- Volume Anomaly: Volume at 6.0% of market cap — within normal range.
These are automated, opinion-based indicators from public data — not financial advice or an allegation of wrongdoing. See our methodology.
Why this asset is flagged as high-risk
The patterns below are automated, opinion-based observations from public market data. They describe statistical risk indicators — not proof of wrongdoing by any project or person.
A small number of insider/team wallets control most of the supply (very low free float). This allows single-hand price control — pinning the price high to drain leveraged short positions via funding, then dumping the entire position for a sudden 90%+ collapse
Risk Factor Breakdown
Each factor is scored independently and weighted to calculate the total risk score.
Price Collapse
Price Action
20/25
80%
Severe ATH drawdown signals exit scams, abandoned projects, or post-pump dumps
Volume Anomaly
Trading Signals
1/20
5%
Abnormal volume-to-market-cap ratio is the primary indicator of wash trading or liquidity traps
Market Cap Risk
Market Structure
0/15
0%
Small market caps can be trivially manipulated by a single large holder (whale)
Supply Structure
Tokenomics
7/20
35%
Free float (circulating vs total/max supply). A low float means both future dilution from locked reserves and concentration enabling single-hand price control (estimated; verified holder data is scored separately).
Price Volatility
Price Action
0/15
0%
Extreme short-term price swings are a hallmark of coordinated pump-and-dump schemes
On-Chain Holder Concentration
Tokenomics
0/22
0%
Verified holder data. Burn and labelled exchange, staking, bridge and LP wallets are excluded; unlabelled contracts (often team/vesting multisigs) are counted. Over 50% in the top 10 enables single-hand price control.
Transparency Gaps
Transparency
0/10
0%
Legitimate projects have verifiable public websites, whitepapers, and open-source code
Key Metrics
Protect Yourself
- • Never invest more than you can afford to lose entirely
- • Check token concentration — if top 10 wallets hold >50%, be cautious
- • Verify the team is public and doxxed
- • Read the smart contract audit before buying
- • Be wary of unrealistic APY promises
Embed Risk Badge
Writing about this coin? Embed our live risk badge — it updates automatically with each daily scan.
Community Comments
Loading comments…
Ethereum Name Service holder-concentration history
14 daily measurements · -0.2 pts over the period
FraudCoins.com has measured the share of Ethereum Name Service’s supply held by its top 10 non-exchange wallets on 14 days since 18 Jul 2026. The highest reading was 79.4% on 1 Aug 2026; the most recent reading is 79.4% on 1 Aug 2026.
Composite risk score (0–100)
Recorded measurements (14)
| Date measured | Top 10 hold | Above 50% threshold |
|---|---|---|
| 79.4% | No | |
| 79.3% | No | |
| 79.3% | No | |
| 79.3% | No | |
| 79.3% | No | |
| 79.6% | No | |
| 79.5% | No | |
| 79.5% | No | |
| 79.5% | No | |
| 79.5% | No | |
| 79.5% | No | |
| 79.5% | No |
Each row is an automated measurement taken on the date shown, using public on-chain holder data with burn and labelled exchange, staking, bridge and liquidity wallets excluded. Historical readings describe what our model measured on that date — they are not statements about the project’s conduct then or now, and are not financial advice.
Track Ethereum Name Service and 1,200+ other assets
One email when any coin newly crosses our 50% top-10 holder-concentration threshold. No account needed.
Confirmed opt-in, unsubscribe in one click. We don’t sell your data — see our privacy policy.
Frequently asked questions about Ethereum Name Service
Is Ethereum Name Service a scam?
Ethereum Name Service (ENS) carries an automated risk score of 28/100, rated low risk by FraudCoins.com. Ethereum Name Service has a dangerously concentrated supply: only ~41% is in free float, meaning an estimated ~59% is controlled by a small number of wallets. This is the setup behind single-hand price manipulation — pinning the price to drain leveraged traders before an abrupt dump. Down 95% from ATH — severe collapse, most investors are deeply underwater. Over half the supply (~59%) is held off-market — a single coordinated seller can dictate the price. These are automated, opinion-based indicators from public market and on-chain data — not statements of fact, financial advice, or allegations of wrongdoing.
Why is Ethereum Name Service flagged as low risk?
Ethereum Name Service's risk score is driven mainly by: price collapse — Down 95% from ATH — severe collapse, most investors are deeply underwater; supply structure — Over half the supply (~59%) is held off-market — a single coordinated seller can dictate the price; volume anomaly — Volume at 6.0% of market cap — within normal range.
Who controls Ethereum Name Service's supply?
On-chain data shows the top 10 holders of Ethereum Name Service hold 79.4% of the supply (burn and labelled exchange, staking and liquidity wallets excluded). This is shown for transparency and sits below our 50% manipulation-flag threshold.
Is Ethereum Name Service safe to buy?
FraudCoins.com does not give buy or sell recommendations, and no cryptocurrency is safe. Ethereum Name Service scores 28/100 (low risk) on our automated risk model. Always do your own research and never invest more than you can afford to lose.