| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x41b744…0222bd |
| Current owner | 0x41b744…0222bd |
| Holders | 1 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x41b744…0222bd | 100.00% |
This automated check looked at the Rocket contract's code and current on-chain state and scored it 12 out of 18. In practical terms, the findings that were not flagged are worth noting: no admin mint function was detected, meaning the owner does not appear to have a built-in way to create new tokens and dilute holders; no transfer-pausing function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze all trading at will; no address blacklist function was detected, meaning there's no apparent mechanism to block specific wallets from buying or selling; and the contract is not upgradeable, so its core logic cannot be swapped out later by the owner. Buy and sell tax both read 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. The source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated reading in the first place.
The findings that stand out concern distribution rather than code: the top 10 holders control 100% of supply, and the contract currently shows only one holder. This points to extremely high concentration — effectively all of the supply sits in very few hands (or one), which means the price could be highly sensitive to the actions of that holder or holders, and there is currently little evidence of organic, distributed ownership.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is anonymous or doxxed, how the tokenomics are structured beyond what's visible on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind the token, or what the creators' intentions are. No human has reviewed this token, and nothing here confirms or rules out fraudulent intent. A clean mechanical score is not a statement that a token is safe, legitimate, or a good investment, just as flags are not proof of a scam.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth independently verifying the project's claimed team and any public communications, checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, looking at the contract on the block explorer yourself to confirm ownership and renouncement status, searching for independent community discussion or audits, and treating a single-holder or highly concentrated supply as a factor that warrants further research rather than dismissal. None of this constitutes financial advice.
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.