| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No — only pool shares for added liquidity | Pool contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xffe50d…c41ecf |
| Current owner | 0xca143c…350c73 — PancakeSwap V2 factory that created the pool |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 100.00% |
| #2 · Null Address · burned | 0x000000…000000 | 0.00% |
This address is not a regular token — it is the PancakeSwap V2 liquidity pool contract for the RB / BNC4 pair. The automated check found no owner-controlled minting, no transfer pausing, no address blacklisting and no upgradeable proxy pattern in the pool's code, and the contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning anyone can inspect the code that is actually running. Because this is a pool rather than a standard token, "minting" here only refers to new pool shares being issued when someone adds liquidity, not a mechanism that lets anyone print the underlying RB or BNC4 tokens. Liquidity shown against this pool is recorded as 100% burned, which means those particular LP tokens have been sent to a dead address and cannot be withdrawn by whoever burned them. The two holders recorded against this address are liquidity providers, not end users of a token, so metrics like holder concentration do not apply in the way they would for an ordinary token.
It's important to understand what this result does not cover. The check only reads the mechanics of this specific pool contract — it does not assess the RB or BNC4 token contracts themselves, their owner permissions, tax settings, mint functions or distribution. It also tells you nothing about who created the pair, the team behind either token, their roadmap, marketing claims, or whether any legal or regulatory structure sits behind the project. An automated contract scan cannot detect intent, off-chain agreements, or future decisions an owner might make through functions not yet exercised. A clean read on pool mechanics is not a statement that the associated project is sound or trustworthy.
Before putting money toward either side of this pair, it would be worth running RB and BNC4's own token contracts through a separate check, since their mint, tax and pause permissions are what actually affect you as a holder of those tokens. Looking at each token's holder distribution, checking whether their liquidity (not just this pool's LP tokens) is locked or burned, and reviewing who controls their contract ownership would all add useful context. It's also worth checking whether the pool still holds meaningful liquidity today, since a burned LP token does not guarantee the pool itself hasn't been drained through other means. Reading any available audit reports, and researching the team or entity behind RB and BNC4 independently, would round out a fuller picture that this contract-level check cannot provide on its own.
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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.