| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 42.8% | Holder distribution | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | Launch pool, permanently | Pons factory | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 10006 | Token contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x6b3bc1…7f8093 |
| Holders | 10,006 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x2dbaf9…095b1a | 14.98% |
| #2 · Pons locker, locked for good · contract | 0x267444…574952 | 8.22% |
| #3 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 5.19% |
| #4 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 5.00% |
| #5 | 0xc0c835…ef1a01 | 2.19% |
This automated check scanned the ROBIN contract's code and current on-chain state and returned 16 out of 18, with no honeypot behaviour detected at the time of the check: a transfer simulation showed the token is sellable, buy and sell tax sit at 0% creator fee plus a 1% fee routed to the Pons factory, and no admin mint function, transfer-pausing mechanism, or address blacklist was found in the contract. There is also no upgradeable proxy present, meaning the logic deployed cannot be silently swapped out later, and the contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code matches what's publicly readable. Liquidity tied to the launch pool is recorded as permanently locked via the Pons factory, which is a relevant signal against an immediate liquidity-pull, though "permanent" reflects the lock mechanism's current configuration as read on-chain, not a guarantee about the future. One point worth flagging on its own: the top 10 holders control 42.8% of supply, which is a meaningful concentration — large holders moving in or out can affect price substantially regardless of what the contract code allows or restricts.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This check only reads contract mechanics — the functions present in the code, tax rates, mint and pause permissions, proxy status, and holder distribution as they appear on-chain today. It says nothing about the team behind ROBIN, whether they are identifiable or anonymous, their track record, the project's actual tokenomics beyond what's on-chain, any legal or regulatory standing, marketing claims, or intent. A clean contract-mechanics score does not speak to whether the people controlling the project will act in holders' interests.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who holds the top wallets and whether any are exchange or team addresses rather than independent holders, since concentration figures alone don't reveal that. Check whether the project has any public team identity, audit reports from a named firm, and a history of activity rather than a brand-new deployment. Look at the liquidity lock details directly on the Pons factory contract to confirm duration and conditions rather than relying on a summary. Reviewing social channels, community size versus holder count, and any discrepancies between marketing claims and what's verifiable on-chain is also a reasonable step before deciding anything.
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.