| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 86.2% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 175524 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbd80a6…ecc331 |
| Holders | 175,524 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x467d5b…34b725 | 37.04% |
| #2 · contract | 0xd8324a…2def5d | 14.57% |
| #3 · contract | 0x18305f…178eb0 | 12.16% |
| #4 · contract | 0xe63e33…3c4133 | 8.79% |
| #5 · contract | 0xdbb471…2ea51b | 5.96% |
This automated check of the RAIN contract on Arbitrum returned a score of 5 out of 10, and the findings point to a few specific things worth understanding rather than a single overall verdict. The simulation found the token sellable, with buy and sell tax both at 0% on the date of the check, and no honeypot behaviour was detected during that simulation. Contract functions such as admin minting, the ability to pause transfers, and address blacklisting were not reported by the data source, so they are shown as no data — this is a gap in information, not confirmation that these powers are absent. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its core code cannot be swapped out after deployment, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, so the actual logic can be read by anyone with the technical ability to do so. The most significant flag here is that liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls that liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it at will, and combined with the top 10 holders controlling 86.2% of supply, a small number of wallets hold a large amount of influence over price movements through either coordinated or individual selling.
What this check does not tell you is just as important as what it does. This is an automated read of contract mechanics and on-chain data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether there are legal or regulatory considerations, or what the stated intentions of the creators are. A verified, non-upgradeable contract with no detected honeypot behaviour tells you about code structure on the day of the check; it says nothing about whether the people controlling the large holdings or the unlocked liquidity intend to act in holders' interests.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking directly at who holds that unlocked liquidity and under what terms, since that single factor can affect the token's price independently of anything else. Checking whether the top wallets are known exchange or team addresses rather than anonymous individual holders would also add useful context to the 86.2% concentration figure. It is also worth searching for any public information about the team, audits beyond this automated check, and community discussion of the project's history, since none of that falls within the scope of what this tool reads from the chain.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.