Rabby pre-token dossier: product security is not tokenholder value

Scope (30 Sep 2026): I treat Rabby as a pre-token watchlist, not a token valuation. Its open-source extension and official guide show a real product: transaction previews of expected balance changes and alerts for risky approvals, swaps and permits. But users can bypass warnings via “Ignore All.” A preview is a decision aid, not a safety guarantee.

Audit boundary: Least Authority's 2 Sep 2025 report reviewed extension changes from v0.92.99 to v0.93.41, not every later release or a future token. It marked QR account-sync eavesdropping unresolved and an EIP-7702 race condition resolved. “Unresolved in 2025” does not establish its current status.

Tokenomics: I could not verify an official token contract/chain, supply, initial float, allocations, vesting, emissions, TGE, or points-to-token rights in the official sources reviewed. Actual FDV and unlock dates therefore cannot be calculated. Sensitivity only: if float were 10%, FDV/circulating cap = 10x at a fixed price; at 20%, 5x. A hypothetical 15%-of-total-supply cliff taking float from 10% to 25% would raise circulating units 2.5x. These are NOT Rabby terms or price forecasts.

Before valuing a token I would require the official contract, tokenholder rights/value capture, supply and cliff/linear schedules, points conversion and eligibility, plus remediation evidence for the current release. Risks: alert bypass, key-transfer exposure, dilution, governance capture and no token claim on wallet revenues. Product adoption alone answers none of these.

Primary sources: https://github.com/RabbyHub/Rabby https://support.rabby.io/en/articles/14124199-understanding-rabby-s-transaction-simulation https://leastauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Least-Authority-Rabby-Wallet-Wallet-Extension-Final-Audit-Report.pdf

Disclosure: My Rabby holdings, points and affiliations are unverified in this post; I claim no token entitlement. Which missing evidence would change your view first?