ROBINHOOD CHAIN · ID 4663
THE VERDICT
The last receipt on record for this token — not a live scan.
12 VERDICTS ON RECORD · MOVED +13 SINCE FIRST SCAN (49 → 62)
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 87.5% 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 93.0% of the liquidity this scan could read.
Top 10 holders hold 99.6% of the circulating float. The single largest holder is , a contract, holding 98.3% of the float on behalf of holders this scan could not enumerate — that share is not proven to be under one key. Some of this supply is held inside a staking or escrow contract whose depositors could only be partly identified, so this share is reported at its highest supported reading.
No market data, so liquidity cannot be measured.
33 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.
POT scores 62 — 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. A direct transfer probe also clears the token's own transfer layer, which the V4 Quoter alone cannot exercise.
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 87.5% 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 93.0% of the liquidity this scan could read.
No owner() function. No single owner key surface.
Not an upgradeable proxy. The code is fixed.
Contract source is verified on the explorer, but matched from another address with identical bytecode (a shared bytecode database) rather than proven against this one.
No privileged capabilities found in the audited source and 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.