| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 86.2% | Holder distribution | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 173841 | Token contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbd80a6…ecc331 |
| Holders | 173,841 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x467d5b…34b725 | 37.18% |
| #2 | 0xd8324a…2def5d | 14.43% |
| #3 | 0x18305f…178eb0 | 12.16% |
| #4 | 0xe63e33…3c4133 | 8.79% |
| #5 | 0xdbb471…2ea51b | 5.96% |
This automated check on RAIN (Arbitrum) scored 13 out of 18. On the date of the check, no admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens at will and dilute holders. No pausable transfer function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze trading for everyone. No address blacklist function was detected, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from selling. The contract is not upgradeable, so its core logic cannot be swapped out later by whoever controls it. A sell simulation completed successfully with 0% buy and sell tax, which is consistent with no honeypot behaviour being detected at the time of the check. Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than reassurance: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it, and the top 10 holders control 86.2% of supply, meaning a small number of wallets could move the market significantly if they sold.
It's worth being clear about what this check is not. It reads the contract's code and on-chain data only — it does not know who is behind the project, whether the team has a history worth trusting, how the token's supply and distribution are meant to work long-term, or whether there is any legal entity standing behind it. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, an anonymous team, or misleading marketing. None of that is assessed by this tool, and a high score on this page should not be read as an endorsement of the project itself.
Before putting any money in, it would be worth looking at who holds those top 10 wallets — whether they include known exchange or team addresses, or whether they look like unrelated individual holders, since concentration risk plays out very differently depending on that. It's also worth checking directly whether the liquidity pool is locked or has a vesting schedule, since this check found it is not, and looking for any lock information on the DEX or a locker service in RAIN's own documentation or social channels. Beyond that, it's sensible to look for a published audit from a named firm, check whether the team is public or verifiable, and read whatever documentation exists on token supply, vesting and intended use before forming a view.
Contracts change after they are checked. Tell us where to reach you and we will say when this one does. Free for three contracts, no account.
We checked 18 points out of 100.
The other 82 are where money is usually lost: who the team is, where the tokens sit, what the documents actually say, and what the project chose not to put on its front page.