| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not found | Implementation code | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Upgrades switched off — the admin is a burn address | Proxy contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 94.2% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 93410 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7b521d…1c68fc |
| Code can be replaced by | Nobody — the admin is a burn address |
| Current code | 0x1a1fdf…e73af0 |
| Holders | 93,410 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x3ee18b…8fa585 | 85.55% |
| #2 · contract | 0xa9d1e0…1d3e43 | 2.90% |
| #3 · contract | 0xb6e39e…57b0e0 | 2.77% |
| #4 | 0xf97deb…e231df | 1.22% |
| #5 | 0x5c50f0…c09c71 | 0.51% |
This automated check looked at the RNDR contract's code and on-chain data, not at the people or plans behind the project. Here's what the findings mean in practical terms. The contract is a proxy, which normally means its underlying logic can be swapped out by whoever controls it — but in this case the upgrade capability has been switched off and the admin role was handed to a burn address, meaning no one, including the original deployer, can push new code to this contract any more. No admin mint function was found, so there's no detected mechanism for the owner to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was found, so there's no detected way to freeze transfers, and no blacklist function was found, so there's no detected way to block specific addresses from moving their tokens. Buy and sell tax are both at 0%, and a simulated sale went through successfully, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of this check. The contract source is verified, so the code matches what's publicly viewable on the block explorer.
Two points on this report are worth sitting with rather than glossing over. Top-10 holders control 94.2% of supply — a concentration this high means large wallets could move the market significantly if they chose to sell, regardless of what the contract code allows or doesn't allow. Separately, liquidity is not locked, which means whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it; this is a different risk from the contract mechanics above and isn't mitigated by any of the "not found" results.
None of this assesses the team behind RNDR, their track record, the project's tokenomics or roadmap, any legal or regulatory status, or whether current development activity matches public claims. A clean contract-mechanics result does not speak to intent, competence or the sustainability of the project, and a token can carry contract-level risk indicators while being run by a legitimate team, or vice versa.
Before putting money in, it's worth independently verifying who holds the top wallets and whether they're exchange or team addresses, checking the current liquidity pool size and depth on a DEX tracker, reviewing the project's official documentation and audit history if any exists, and confirming holder and liquidity figures directly on a block explorer close to the time you intend to act, since these numbers change.
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.