| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 40.7% | Holder distribution | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 12224 | Token contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0acaa5…32fda1 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 12,224 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x0acaa5…32fda1 | 22.04% |
| #2 | 0x9642b2…2f5d4e | 6.23% |
| #3 · contract | 0x643365…aa01be | 4.53% |
| #4 · contract | 0x876e5d…ac899f | 2.16% |
| #5 | 0x8673fd…e4aaa0 | 1.29% |
This automated check of RAI (Reploy) on Ethereum found no honeypot behaviour: simulated transfers show the token can be bought and sold, with no buy or sell tax detected at the time of the check. No admin mint function, pause function, upgradeable proxy, or address blacklist was detected in the contract code, meaning the contract owner does not currently appear to hold the ability to mint new tokens at will, freeze transfers, swap in new contract logic, or block specific wallets from trading. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code behind these findings can be read by anyone. Two points stand out as worth your attention: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, and the top 10 holders control 40.7% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could move a large portion of tokens at once.
It is important to understand what this check does not cover. It reads the contract's mechanical behaviour only — what the code allows, not what the team intends to do with it. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team is anonymous or doxxed, how tokens are allocated or scheduled to unlock, whether there is a registered legal entity, or whether any marketing claims made about the token are accurate. A clean mechanical result does not confirm legitimacy, and flagged items do not confirm wrongdoing; they are indicators to weigh, not conclusions.
Before putting money into this or any token, it's worth checking a few things directly. Look up the liquidity pool itself to see who controls it and whether a lock exists that wasn't picked up here. Check the wallets among the top 10 holders to see if they are exchange addresses, known project wallets, or unlabelled individual accounts, and look at their transaction history for prior sell-offs. Search for the team's identity, any audits beyond automated checks, and community discussion of the project's history. Review the tokenomics document or whitepaper for vesting schedules and allocation breakdowns. None of this guarantees an outcome, but it fills in the parts of the picture that a contract-mechanics check cannot reach.
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.