MemoirPublished address analysis · Ethereum & Base
One address, different account states on Ethereum and Base
0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000010The same hexadecimal address is not evidence of the same account state or controller across chains. A contract verification on Base cannot explain an Ethereum balance by itself.
A historical research snapshot, not a live balance, identity verification or safety rating. Source links may now show newer information.
Finding 1
Keep the network attached to every fact
In the September 4, 2026 snapshot, the Ethereum index classified the address as an EOA, while Sourcify returned a contract source-code match on Base. These observations describe separate chains, not a contradiction within one chain.
Check the public sourceFinding 2
The selected activity is narrow
All five records in the frozen Ethereum selection are inbound. This alone cannot establish a passive-wallet role, unsolicited transfers or a shared controller. A fee on a record is not the amount received.
Inspect the frozen evidenceFinding 3
Holdings do not establish market value
The snapshot includes a displayed MALLY token holding, but missing market evidence does not prove low liquidity, low value or scam status. The earlier report’s blanket dust interpretation is not supported.
Inspect the frozen evidenceWhat to check next
Verify the intended network and contract with the protocol’s official documentation before interpreting a transfer. Contract verification alone is not a safe-deposit guarantee or proof of bridge settlement.
The report covers 5 selected timeline records from Mar 23, 2026 to Aug 10, 2026. It is not a complete transaction history. Read the report’s source failures and editorial corrections alongside its original AI analysis.
Published by Lanmo Information Consulting. See our evidence methodology and network coverage.