ROBINHOOD CHAIN · ID 4663
THE VERDICT
The last receipt on record for this token — not a live scan.
1 VERDICT ON RECORD
None of this V4 pool's liquidity is burned or locked. The largest liquidity provider is , a plain wallet, and not the deployer. It controls 40.7% of this pool's liquidity and can withdraw it at any moment. Renouncing ownership does not protect against this. This pool is on Uniswap V4 and holds 12.0% of the liquidity this scan could read. The deepest pool this scan could read (Uniswap V4, 82.3% of the liquidity we read) was assessed separately: its liquidity is locked.
16 points of this token's scoring surface could not be read this scan, so the score is capped at 84 (the top of CAUTION). A check that stands down for want of data deducts nothing, so without this cap a failed read would look the same as a clean result. This is about what we could see, not about the token.
No canonical asset collision.
No scam tag on the explorer.
No prior honeypot on record.
HOOKR scores 82 — CAUTION. LP custody is the one that moved it, 18 points off. Ask me why.
DRAWN FROM THIS VERDICT’S CHECKS — NOT A MODEL ANSWER
OPENS THE PANEL — THAT IS WHERE YOU TYPE
Sell quotes through the (hookless) pool: exitable. But the V4 Quoter does not settle token balances, and the token's own transfer layer could not be probed (could not locate the balances storage slot (non-standard layout), so no transfer could be simulated) — so nothing here exercised the layer where a sell is actually blocked, and no exit conclusion is drawn.
None of this V4 pool's liquidity is burned or locked. The largest liquidity provider is , a plain wallet, and not the deployer. It controls 40.7% of this pool's liquidity and can withdraw it at any moment. Renouncing ownership does not protect against this. This pool is on Uniswap V4 and holds 12.0% of the liquidity this scan could read. The deepest pool this scan could read (Uniswap V4, 82.3% of the liquidity we read) was assessed separately: its liquidity is locked.
No owner() function, and the contract audit did not complete, so ownerlessness is not established.
Not an upgradeable proxy. The code is fixed.
Contract source is partially verified on the explorer, matched from another address with identical bytecode rather than proven against this one.
No mint/pause/blacklist/limit functions found in bytecode.
No fee or limit toggling by the deployer in the transactions searched. This looks at the deployer's recent history only, so calls by a separate fee authority are out of its reach.
Heads up: the scanner is improved continuously, and some fixes only surface once they meet real tokens on production. Our trusted registry — verified LP lockers, known-good launchpad contracts — is checked and approved by a human on the team, so a legitimate project can score lower for a while until we've confirmed its contracts ourselves. A low score is a prompt to look closer, not a conclusion.
Ask why this verdict reads the way it does.