| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 83.4% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 26 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0ab3f9…733df0 |
| Holders | 26 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x7eba3e…0830db | 9.70% |
| #2 | 0xaaca46…f40c3b | 8.98% |
| #3 | 0x2add05…7eda91 | 8.90% |
| #4 | 0x6994f7…2f2736 | 8.75% |
| #5 | 0x0ab3f9…733df0 | 8.55% |
This automated check looked at the RVM contract's code and current on-chain data and scored it 13 out of 18. A simulated transfer on the date of the check showed that selling is currently possible, no honeypot behaviour was detected, and buy tax reads as 0%, though sell tax data is not available, so the actual cost of exiting a position is not fully confirmed. The contract does not contain admin mint, transfer-pausing, or address-blacklisting functions, and it is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning that on the day of the check, the owner did not appear to retain the mechanical ability to freeze specific wallets, create new tokens that dilute holders, or swap in new contract logic after launch. Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than reassurance: the top 10 holders control 83.4% of the supply across only 26 known holders, which means a small number of wallets could move a large share of supply at once and affect the price significantly if they sell; and liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, which would make the token difficult or impossible to sell at a reasonable price even though no code-level selling restriction exists today.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics and current holder and liquidity data only, automatically, with no human review involved. It says nothing about who the team behind River Markets is, whether their identity is public or verifiable, what the token is meant to be used for, how the tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, or whether there is any legal entity standing behind the project. A clean mechanical read does not speak to intent, and a contract can look unremarkable in code while still being part of a project with weak fundamentals or undisclosed plans for the liquidity or the large holder wallets.
Before putting money in, it would be sensible to look at the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who holds the LP tokens and whether they could remove liquidity unilaterally. It's also worth checking whether the top holder wallets are linked to the project team, an exchange, or unrelated outside parties, since concentrated ownership tied to the team carries different implications than concentration held by a centralized exchange. Searching for any public information about the people behind River Markets, their track record, and their stated plans for the token would add context this check cannot provide. Because sell tax data is incomplete, checking the actual cost of a sale independently before committing significant funds is also worth doing.
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.