| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 93.8% | Holder distribution | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 93084 | Token contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 12 Feb 2019 — 2,768 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x7b6533…2c1c28 |
| Deployed by | 0x7b521d…1c68fc |
| Holders | 93,084 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x3ee18b…8fa585 | 84.44% |
| #2 | 0xa9d1e0…1d3e43 | 2.94% |
| #3 | 0xb6e39e…57b0e0 | 2.77% |
| #4 | 0xf97deb…e231df | 1.22% |
| #5 | 0x2ed605…4bb221 | 0.79% |
This automated check scanned RNDR's contract mechanics on Ethereum and returned a score of 11 out of 18. A few findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract uses an upgradeable proxy structure, which means whoever controls the associated admin keys can replace the underlying logic of the contract at a later date — potentially changing how the token behaves, even after you've bought it. No admin mint function, transfer pausability, or blacklist capability was detected on the date of this check, and buy/sell tax was found to be 0% with sellability confirmed via simulation — none of these point to the classic "honeypot" pattern where an owner can trap or drain holders directly. However, the top 10 wallets hold 93.8% of the supply, a concentration level that means a small number of addresses could move a large share of tokens at once, which can affect liquidity and price independently of anything written in the code. Liquidity was also found not to be locked, meaning whoever supplied it could withdraw it from the pool without a time-based restriction preventing them from doing so.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate the team behind the token, the reasoning or fairness of its tokenomics, any legal or regulatory standing, roadmap credibility, or intent. Source code being verified on the explorer means the code is publicly readable and matches what's deployed; it says nothing about who wrote it or why. A token can score well on mechanics like this one and still carry risks this check simply isn't designed to see.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who holds the admin/upgrade keys for the proxy and whether they sit behind a multisig or timelock, since that materially changes how much unilateral power exists over the contract. Check where the liquidity sits and who controls the LP tokens, given it isn't locked. Look at the concentration among top holders and whether any of those addresses are known exchange or treasury wallets rather than individual holders, since that changes what 93.8% actually implies. Finally, review the project's own documentation, audit history if any exists, and community discussion around governance of the upgrade mechanism, rather than relying on any single automated score to form a complete picture.
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.