| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 26% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 10058 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x542718…b8aa33 |
| Holders | 10,058 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x9501a2…965d49 | 6.67% |
| #2 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 5.48% |
| #3 | 0xa9fd06…c1246d | 3.33% |
| #4 · contract | 0x058f34…101037 | 2.71% |
| #5 · contract | 0x5364d7…e69e4b | 1.81% |
This automated check looked at the contract code and on-chain data for WALLET and found no honeypot-style behaviour: a simulated transfer went through successfully, buy and sell tax are both set to 0%, and the contract does not contain an admin mint function, a transfer-pause switch, or an address blacklist. It is also not an upgradeable proxy, which means the underlying logic cannot be swapped out later by whoever controls it. In practical terms, these findings suggest the owner does not currently have built-in code paths to block your sales, mint new tokens to dilute you, freeze your wallet, or silently change the rules after the fact. The contract source is also verified on the block explorer, so the code tied to this address is publicly readable rather than hidden. Liquidity is not locked, but the check notes this is typical for large, established tokens like this one, where the main pool is spread across roughly 50 separate liquidity providers rather than concentrated in one or two wallets that could pull funds at will.
What this check does not tell you is anything about the people or organisation behind the token, their track record, their future plans, or whether the project's economics make sense. It does not assess legal structure, marketing claims, roadmap credibility, or whether the stated purpose of the token matches how it is actually being used. A contract can score well on mechanics like this one while the surrounding project still carries risks this tool simply isn't built to see — things like centralised decision-making off-chain, reliance on a single team, or business risk that has nothing to do with the smart contract itself.
Holder concentration is worth sitting with for a moment: the top 10 holders currently control 26% of supply across a base of just over 10,000 holders. That is not flagged as a red flag outright, but it's a concentration level worth factoring in, since large holders moving tokens can affect available liquidity and price behaviour regardless of what the contract code allows or prevents.
Before putting money in, it's worth independently verifying who operates this contract and cross-checking that against Robinhood's own official channels, reading whatever documentation or disclosures exist around the token's intended use, checking recent on-chain transaction history for unusual large transfers from top holders, and confirming liquidity depth and distribution yourself on a block explorer rather than relying solely on this summary. This check reflects conditions observed on the date it was run and does not predict future contract changes, holder behaviour, or market conditions.
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.