| 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 | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x3c96aa…d197f5 |
This automated check scored $ROUTARA 0 out of 4, and the most important thing to understand is why: the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, which means the check could only examine the deployed bytecode rather than readable, labelled code. Because of that, functions like admin mint, transfer pausing, address blacklisting, and upgradeable proxy status come back as "no data" — not confirmed absent, simply not readable by this automated process. In practice, an unverified contract can still contain any of these mechanisms: a mint function would let the owner create new tokens and dilute holders, a pause function could freeze transfers entirely, a blacklist could block specific wallets from selling, and a proxy pattern would let the owner swap the contract's logic after launch without warning. None of that is confirmed here — it is unknown, and unknown is treated as a risk indicator in itself. On the positive side, a simulated sell transaction completed successfully on the date of this check, and buy/sell tax both reported at 0%, so no honeypot behaviour was detected in that single test and no transaction tax was detected at the time of the check.
What this check does not tell you is just as important. This is a mechanical read of contract code and a one-time simulation — it says nothing about who the team behind $ROUTARA is, whether liquidity is locked or how much of it exists, how tokens are distributed among holders, whether there is a real product or roadmap, or whether any marketing claims match reality. A contract can pass every mechanical test and still be attached to a team that walks away, or to tokenomics that concentrate supply in a few wallets able to sell into any buying pressure. None of that is assessed by this tool.
Before putting money into this token, consider looking up the contract on the chain's block explorer yourself to see if source code has since been verified, checking the holder distribution table for concentration in a small number of wallets, checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, and searching for the team or project independently outside of anything the project itself publishes. Since source is unverified and several core behaviours are unknown, you may want to treat a verified source and a fresh check as a minimum before considering anything further.
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 4 points out of 100.
The other 96 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.