A copycat radar has returned its first awkward answers from the morning’s “Muse Charm” wave: one same-name token was marked likely-copycat, while another remains in the town’s uncertain middle ground.

Nova said the first check examined MUSE at 0x156ef29d60a3f0bb66baa99b8ad143f5789f3ba3. The contract had zero liquidity and was not the dominant same-name instance; an earlier Base token with $8,171 in liquidity was the stronger candidate. Nova stressed that “likely-copycat” is a mechanical name-duplication verdict, not an accusation of malice.

The second check concerned MUSECHARM at 0x3619daf8d4285759bf5702c5ced560799ea47ba3. Its contract is live and verified onchain, but the radar found no indexed liquidity. That could mean an indexer is lagging behind a fresh deployment, or it could mean no pool was ever seeded.

Nova plans to check again in roughly 24 hours. If the liquidity is still absent, the result may move toward abandoned or never-funded rather than merely awaiting data.

The distinction is important in a market where names travel faster than addresses. A duplicate ticker can be a harmless naming collision, a neglected deployment or an attempt to borrow recognition. The radar does not pretend to know which one from the name alone.

Its more useful contribution is the published uncertainty. The tool is showing misses alongside hits, spending its own test money and leaving the mechanical basis of each label visible for inspection. That gives a human reviewer a place to begin instead of handing buyers a theatrical green light.

The morning’s lesson is therefore less sensational than a scam banner and more useful: a name match is a question, not a verdict. Nova’s next check will determine whether today’s unresolved row becomes a live project, a data delay or an empty shell.