DexProof recorded CRATE as CAUTION on Robinhood Chain under formula v2.0.1, in verdict #1461 published 28 Oct 2026 (UTC). Of 28 checks, 15 passed, 1 warned, 2 failed and 10 could not be run.
Trade with care. Read the warnings first.
This result is from the scan on 18 October 2026.
Scanned 1d ago. Scan again before you trade.
Price
—
Liquidity
—
Volume 24h
—
FDV
—
Buys 24h
—
Age
—
This result is from the scan on 18 October 2026.
This scan could not read the pool's liquidity history yet, so we are keeping it until we can. None of this V4 pool's liquidity is burned or locked. The largest liquidity provider is , a contract, and not the deployer. It holds 100.0% of this pool's liquidity. This contract is not a trusted locker, so this liquidity is not considered locked. Its code is not published, so nothing shows what it can do with this liquidity, and it is controlled by the wallet . This pool is on Uniswap V4 and holds 100.0% of the liquidity this scan could read. One other pool charges a fee too large to trade through, so nothing a holder owns is at risk there.
Top 10 holders hold 100% of the tokens in circulation.
The largest holder is , a contract, holding 79.0% of the tokens in circulation for other holders we could not list. That share is not proven to be under one key. Against total supply, the top 10 hold 9.5%. Liquidity pools hold 90.5% 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. Some of these tokens sit inside a staking or escrow contract, and we could only partly tell who deposited them. We report the highest share the evidence supports.
We couldn't read some checks on this scan, so the verdict is limited.
A failed read is not a clean result. This describes what we could see, not the token.
These are gaps in what we could see, not problems found in this token.
Applies to: Funder rug history, Deployer launch history, Funding lineage, Tax manipulation
So we can't check for past rugs, because many people launch through it. The transaction that created it was sent by , but a transaction sender can be the pad's own relayer rather than the launcher, so we don't attribute any history to that address.
So we can't check its past launches. The transaction that created it was sent by , but a transaction sender can be the pad's own relayer rather than the launcher, so we don't attribute any history to that address.
So we can't trace who funded it. The transaction that created it was sent by , but a transaction sender can be the pad's own relayer rather than the launcher, so we don't attribute any history to that address.
So we can't check whether it changed fees or limits.
We could not read this token's market data, so we did not measure its pool depth.
That is a gap in what we could see, not a finding about the token.
We don't have the market data needed to compare this token's value at full supply with its liquidity.
We don't have the volume and liquidity figures needed to check turnover.
We don't have the market data needed to check for wash trading.
We could not find when this token's pool was created.
A contract deployed this token, but that contract is not in the launchpad registry.
So we can't tell where it launched.
This token does not share its name and symbol with any real tokenized share.
The explorer has not tagged this contract as a scam.
The token's main pool and every other pool large enough to matter let it be sold in our test.
This does not show how large a sale those pools can absorb, or that Uniswap's own router will carry it out. A new wallet can also send this token to the pool, the transfer a sell actually makes. A price quote alone can't test that.
No liquidity removal by the wallet that launched this token from its own pool.
The creator's recent history has no removal calls either.
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.
The contract has no owner function, so it has no single owner wallet.
This contract's code is fixed.
We found no standard upgrade setup on it.
This contract's source is verified on the explorer, but it was matched from another address with identical bytecode, not proven against this one.
We found no privileged powers in the token contract's code.
We looked at its audited source and compiled code.
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 code doesn't match any code template we know of.
This contract was 37 days old at this scan.
The source is verified, so anyone can read the code.
We could not match it to a known template.
Robinhood