ROBINHOOD CHAIN · ID 4663
THE VERDICT
The last receipt on record for this token — not a live scan.
1 VERDICT ON RECORD
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.
None of this V3 pool's liquidity is burned or locked. The largest liquidity provider is , a contract, and not the deployer. It holds 91.0% of this pool's liquidity. This contract is not a trusted locker, so this liquidity is not considered locked. Its controller or contract logic may still transfer or withdraw it; contract audit is required before making a stronger claim. This pool is on Uniswap V3 and holds 99.5% of the liquidity this scan could read.
Top 10 holders hold 34.7% of the circulating float. On raw total supply that's 31.1%, because 10.5% of total supply sits in liquidity pools and is excluded from the float. The float figure is measured against supply outside the pools, so it also moves when pool liquidity moves. The single largest holder is , a plain wallet, holding 11.2% of the float on its own.
Pool is 2.4h old, under the 48h line.
Contract deployed 2.4h ago.
WIZARD scores 81 — CAUTION. LP custody is the one that moved it, 9 points off. Ask me why.
DRAWN FROM THIS VERDICT’S CHECKS — NOT A MODEL ANSWER
OPENS THE PANEL — THAT IS WHERE YOU TYPE
Buy and sell both simulate cleanly, including as two independent fresh wallets paying this chain's live gas price (40052000 wei).
None of this V3 pool's liquidity is burned or locked. The largest liquidity provider is , a contract, and not the deployer. It holds 91.0% of this pool's liquidity. This contract is not a trusted locker, so this liquidity is not considered locked. Its controller or contract logic may still transfer or withdraw it; contract audit is required before making a stronger claim. This pool is on Uniswap V3 and holds 99.5% of the liquidity this scan could read.
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.