I would like to raise a concern regarding how MetaMask handles newly deployed tokens.
In my case, the token contract is verified, has no transfer restrictions, has no sell restrictions, is not a honeypot, and contains no obvious malicious or backdoor functionality. However, MetaMask still flags the token as suspicious and repeatedly shows warnings during normal operations.
My concern is not the existence of a warning itself. User protection is important. The issue is that these warnings create significant friction during the early stages of a project’s lifecycle.
For a newly launched token, the typical process is:
-
Deploy the contract.
-
Verify the contract.
-
Import the token into wallets.
-
Test transfers and distribution.
-
Conduct airdrops or initial allocations.
-
Add liquidity and continue the launch process.
The problem is that some of the trust signals MetaMask appears to require can only be established after these early steps are completed. If a project is treated as suspicious before it has had the opportunity to build liquidity, transaction history, distribution, and reputation, how is a legitimate new project supposed to satisfy those requirements?
I understand that “not being a honeypot” alone is not enough to establish trust. However, if the contract is verified, transferable, and free of known malicious mechanisms, should MetaMask’s warning system create this much friction for basic setup activities?
My question is:
How can a legitimate new project meet MetaMask’s trust criteria if the launch and distribution process is already hindered before those criteria can realistically be achieved?
I would appreciate clarification on what specific requirements a new token must satisfy and whether there is a more developer-friendly approach that balances user protection with the ability to launch legitimate projects.
Hey there, thanks a lot for reaching out about this!
What information has been shared and is available regarding that can be found here: Understand and manage security alerts to protect your wallet | MetaMask Help Center
If your project is encountering something like this I would recommend using the “Report an issue” button as seen in the screenshot shared below and you can always get in touch with our Support Team at https://support.metamask.io/ regarding these cases as well!
They will look into it and help you as soon as possible. 
Just to add to what the Mod has shared above, what you’re describing is a common challenge faced by newly launched projects.
While I’m not sure how exactly MetaMask handles the newly deployed tokens, the likely issue may be that MetaMask’s token warnings are generally based on a combination of factors rather than contract verification alone. It may be using multiple trust signals, such as token age, holder distribution, trading history, liquidity depth, verified metadata, community reports, third party security databases, scam pattern detection, risk scores from security partners.
As a result, a legitimate token may still be categorized as unknown or potentially risky during its earliest stages simply because insufficient data exists to establish confidence.
1 Like
Hi there, thanks for your response!
I checked my token page after importing it, but I’m not seeing any “Report an issue” option anywhere. It seems this option isn’t showing for my token in the current view.
Could you please confirm where exactly I should find it, or if it only appears under specific security alerts? If needed, I can share the token contract details for further review.
Thanks again for your help 
1 Like
The screenshot I’ve shared above is from the transaction confirmation screen.
You mentioned
MetaMask still flags the token as suspicious and repeatedly shows warnings during normal operations
I assumed that was the warning you’re seeing when trying to interact with your token (for which you can use the Report an issue button to raise the false flag with Blockaid). If it’s not that message you’re encountering please share a screenshot of what you’re seeing.
1 Like
Hey, I threatened a lawsuit against the compabny handling this for Consensys. that company is no longer listed as the company handling this, so hitting Consensys hard, is the best solution. they dont just say its “suspicious”. they say it WILL causes a loss or drain of funds. This is libel. If youa re interesgted ina class action, let me know. The fact that contract is verified should vbe sufficient. If not, verified but based on a verified copntract, tht shoudl also be sufficient (i.e. the initCode matches a verified contract). In any event, shame on Consensys for not choosing a begtter choice of words. It is for this reason among so many others that blockchain is still a toy and cannot yet be taken seriously. It is not decentralized when it is controlleed bya just a couple of companies - for example Consensys. Best advice? Make your own wallet for your DAPPS with no sandboxes or warnings that align with your contracts by default.
Understand the frustration, and discussing with the team how we can adjust the warning to adequately warn users, without so authoritatively saying its a deceptive request. We cant give too many details on how we measure trust signals, as scammers would just use that to attempt bypass.
The vast majority of alerts are for malicious tokens. False flagging happens, which we try to address quickly to help avoid this headache for legitimate tokens and teams. Sorry you’re having to deal with it.
If you’re comfortable sharing the contract address here, we can take a closer look. Or you can reach out to the private support chat: https://support.MetaMask.io > either button under ‘Contact Support’ - The bot will ask a few questions then get you connected.
@Kensilverman - Same advice, share a contract address if youre comfortable doing so in a public channel. Or reach out to the support chat so we can grab it in private.
2 Likes
