Trade with care. Read the warnings first.
We couldn't finish the sell test on the other exchanges we checked.
Scanned 1d ago. Scan again before you trade.
- WARNHoneypot
- WARNChecks with missing data
- WARNContract ownership
DexProof recorded MONITOR as CAUTION on Robinhood Chain under formula v2.0.1, in verdict #1524 published 29 Oct 2026 (UTC). Of 28 checks, 18 passed, 5 warned and 5 could not be run.
Trade with care. Read the warnings first.
We couldn't finish the sell test on the other exchanges we checked.
Scanned 1d ago. Scan again before you trade.
Price
$0.0008
Liquidity
$282,582
Volume 24h
$116,818
FDV
$785,407
Buys 24h
432
453 sells
Age
58d 21h
We couldn't finish the sell test on the other exchanges we checked.
At least one pool did not pass its sell test and could not be shown too small to matter, so we can't say this token can be sold everywhere.
We couldn't work out who controls this token's liquidity on this scan.
Missing data limits the verdict. A pool we couldn't read is not a pool we cleared. This describes what we could see, not the token.
This contract still has an active owner: .
The token contract has privileged powers (limit change, a switch that can block transfers or selling, privileged low-level code we couldn't read), but whoever controlled them gave up control or can no longer use them.
The code still contains these, but they can no longer be used: supply mint (initialize can only run once and already has), amm route change (initialize can only run once and already has), initialization (initialize can only run once and already has).
The same code has been deployed 15 times, which looks like a copycat pattern.
These are gaps in what we could see, not problems found in this token.
We can't rule out that the creator pulled liquidity from this token's pool.
We didn't check 60 transactions by the creator that could remove liquidity.
We couldn't work out which wallet funded the creator, so there was no funder to check for past rugs.
This pool's liquidity history does not add up to the liquidity the pool reports, so our record of it is incomplete.
We can't trust any holder share worked out from it. This pool is on Uniswap V4 and holds 98.7% of the liquidity we could read. One other pool charges a fee too large to trade through, so nothing a holder owns is at risk there.
We couldn't find the wallet that first funded this deployer, so we have no funding trail to check.
A contract created this token, so we can't see the person behind it.
So we can't check whether it changed fees or limits.
This token does not share its name and symbol with any real tokenized share.
The explorer has not tagged this contract as a scam.
This token is not on our list of confirmed rugs.
This token has no honeypot mark in our records.
This token has no pump-and-dump mark in our records.
This deployer has no earlier launches on record.
Top 10 holders hold 23% of the tokens in circulation.
Against total supply, the top 10 hold 18.2%. Liquidity pools hold 19.7% of total supply, and we leave them out of the tokens in circulation. The top 10 share also moves when pool liquidity moves, even if no holder trades.
The deepest pool holds $282,582.
This contract's code is fixed.
We found no standard upgrade setup on it.
This contract's source is partially verified on the explorer.
The code matches, but the compiler metadata does not. This is about its implementation at .
This token's value at full supply is 3× its pool liquidity, a proportionate ratio.
Trading volume over 24 hours is 0.4× the pool's liquidity, below our warning level.
Volume is 0.4× the pool's liquidity, below our warning level.
Our market data had no trader counts, so we could not check for wallets trading back and forth.
No active paid boosts.
DexScreener has paid listing services on record for this token (a token profile), which is common for a launched token.
This token's pool was 57 days old at this scan.
This contract was 57 days old at this scan.
Launched on Doppler.
Our launchpad records don't show it graduating, but it has a DEX pool. The raise on record is too old to compare against, so how much of it the creator bought is unknown.
The source is partially verified through a bytecode match, so the code can be read.
We could not match it to a known template.