HostHostDeFi › Library › Is SASHIMI safe on Ethereum?
Is SASHIMI safe on Ethereum? A 5,000x field mismatch
SASHIMI on Ethereum is the batch's mirage made visible: ~$169M of tracked liquidity behind a reported cap of $31,437 — a 5,000x field mismatch — grading B (75) on our September 26, 2026 read.
SashimiSwap's SASHIMI token on Ethereum grades B (75). One bad flag: the contract can mint new supply. Clean otherwise: freeze disabled, verified source, healthy liquidity, creator under 0.01%. Behind the flags: ~2,468 holders, 1,164 days live — and a data mismatch that deserves the page's whole attention.
The numbers don't agree with each other and the page's job is to say so: a reported market cap of ~$31K against ~$169.5M of tracked pool and ~$49M of daily volume is a five-thousand-fold discrepancy that no plausible token economics can reconcile. Something in the snapshot's fields is wrong; what's wrong is the point.
The $31K cap on a $169M pool
The mismatch deserves a precise reading. Two fields are in tension: the cap figure (~$31,437) implies a nearly-worthless token — ~227.8M units at fractions of a cent. The liquidity figure (~$169.5M) implies a venue deeper than crvUSD's or Base-WBTC's. Both cannot be the price of the same thing.
The likeliest resolution — and the page treats it as likely, not certain: the cap field is broken (a stale or garbage unit price multiplied across supply), while the pool and volume figures are real measurements of actual money. The alternative — that the pool figure is wrong — would imply someone deposited ~$169M behind a $31K asset, which is possible (dead-protocol ghost liquidity) but requires the bigger conspiracy.
What the checklist actually measured
The B-75 is honest about what it saw: a verified contract with a live mint and a freeze-disabled transfer layer, on a pool the index calls healthy. The flag set is real regardless of which number is broken — the mint power is a fact of the contract, not of the price feed.
What the letter can't adjudicate is the field-level data quality — the checklist consumed the index's figures and graded them. That's the correct behavior (the checklist isn't a forensics tool), and it's why the page exists: the letter says "one bad flag, clean surface" and the page says "and also the cap field doesn't agree with the pool field by a factor of five thousand."
~2,468 holders of the ghost-or-not
The holder count is the figure that anchors the "probably real but weird" reading: ~2,468 wallets is a real constituency — not a placeholder, not a bot count, a mid-size holder base consistent with a live protocol's residual community. If the deployment were genuinely dead the count would still read (wallets don't vanish), but the volume figure argues the venue is still in use.
~$49M of daily volume is the number that most strains the "dead token" reading — that's real daily throughput on a pool that someone is using. Whether the trades are wash liquidity, residual protocol activity, or arbitrage churn around a broken price feed, the checklist measured the flow, and the page reports it as measured.
1,164 days of whatever this is
The age column — over three years — is where the ghost-token hypothesis gets traction: SashimiSwap was a 2020-era Sushi fork whose protocol relevance faded, and a 1,164-day-old deployment with a $31K reported cap reads like exactly that kind of residue. The wrinkle is the liquidity: dead protocols usually leave thin pools, not $169M ones.
The page doesn't resolve the tension — it holds it. What the age certifies is that whatever this deployment is now, it's been there for three-plus years, which is its own kind of datum: enough time to decay into a zombie venue, or enough time to have grown into something the index's price feed lost track of.
Why the mint flag reads differently here
On a functioning protocol token, "can mint" is a governance question. On a deployment whose price field is broken, it reads more like an open question nobody's watching: the contract can print, the surface is otherwise clean, and whether anyone would bother exercising the power depends on whether there's anything left to steal — which loops back to which of the two fields is broken.
That's the page's actual lesson: the checklist's flag is the same either way, but the risk it encodes scales with the value the mint could dilute. On a $31K asset the flag is nearly academic; on a $169M asset it's a live lever. The data mismatch isn't a quirk — it determines what the flag is worth.
The supply figures, one more seam
Circulating is null; total reads ~227.75M units. On this page the null circ is the smallest anomaly in a field set that's already in tension — consistent with the same measurement mess that produced the cap figure. The page reports both as given: total supply exists on the ledger, circulating is unreported, and the gap is one more reason to distrust the headline numbers individually.
What a holder should actually take from it
The practical paragraph: if you're holding SASHIMI, the flag set says the contract is clean-modulo-mint — but the field mismatch says the index's picture of the market can't be trusted at face value. The page's advice is the series' standard one sharpened for this case: verify live before trusting either number — scan the contract for the powers, check the pool for the depth — because on this deployment the snapshot itself disagrees with itself.
Where it sits in the ledger
As a data-integrity page, SASHIMI is the batch's flagship anomaly — the strongest example this series has printed of "the metrics are the story." The B-75 is real; the numbers behind it require the reader to pick which one to believe, and the page's job is to refuse to pick for them.
The live-scan prescription
This page is the strongest case in the batch for the /check-token step: when a snapshot's own fields disagree, the dated read is a starting point rather than an answer. A live scan re-measures the contract surface directly — the mint flag will still be there (that's a code property), but the liquidity and cap fields get re-derived, which is the only way to learn whether the $31K or the $169M was the broken reading at read time.
227.75M units, measured not judged
The total supply figure — ~227.75M units — is the one number on this page that isn't in dispute, and it anchors the "something real exists" side of the argument: whatever the price feed thinks a unit is worth, the ledger knows how many there are. On a page where the two headline figures can't both be true, the supply count is the solid footing the rest of the arithmetic has to stand on.
Holding it, honestly
If you hold SASHIMI you hold a three-year-old contract with a live mint, a working venue, and a cap figure that disagrees with its own liquidity by a factor of five thousand. The B-75 grades the surface honestly; the page's job is to keep the disagreement printed, because on this deployment the data seam is the finding.
Frequently asked
Is SASHIMI safe on Ethereum?
As of the September 26, 2026 snapshot, SASHIMI grades B (75) — live mint, freeze disabled, verified — but the reported cap (~$31K) disagrees with tracked liquidity (~$169M) by ~5,000x, which is the page's actual finding.
Why does SASHIMI's market cap say $31K?
Likely a broken price feed — the cap implies fractions of a cent while the pool and volume figures measure real money. The page prints the mismatch rather than resolving it.
Can SASHIMI be minted?
Yes — the contract can mint new supply. What the flag is worth depends on which field is broken: nearly academic on a $31K asset, a live lever on a $169M one.
Is SASHIMI still active?
~2,468 holders and ~$49M of daily volume argue the venue is used; the 1,164-day age and broken cap argue residue of a 2020-era protocol. Both readings stay printed.
Should I trust this page's numbers?
Individually, cautiously — the snapshot disagrees with itself. The flag set is solid (contract powers are measured directly); the market figures need a live check before being trusted.