DexProof recorded FUNI as CAUTION on Robinhood Chain under formula v2.0.1, in verdict #1482 published 29 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.
Top 10 holders hold 99% of the tokens in circulation.
Scanned 1d ago. Scan again before you trade.
Price
—
Liquidity
—
Volume 24h
—
FDV
—
Buys 24h
—
Age
—
Top 10 holders hold 99% of the tokens in circulation.
The largest holder is , a plain wallet, holding 57.0% of the tokens in circulation on its own. Against total supply, the top 10 hold 1.1%. Liquidity pools hold 98.9% 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.
Launched on Pons, which puts tokens straight into an exchange pool and runs no bonding curve.
So there was no raise for the creator to buy into. 73.9% of the token supply was bought for 3.8800 ETH by 1 wallet in the transaction that opened its pool, before outside buyers could trade.
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.
We can't rule out that the creator pulled liquidity from this token's pool.
We only read the creator's most recent transactions. We didn't check 303 transactions by the creator that could remove liquidity.
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 launchpad's own record names , but that address has launched 478 tokens for many different people, so we don't attribute any history to that address.
So we can't check its past launches. The launchpad's own record names , but that address has launched 478 tokens for many different people, so we don't attribute any history to that address.
So we can't trace who funded it. The launchpad's own record names , but that address has launched 478 tokens for many different people, 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. The opening token deposit into pool contained no ETH. Its opening ETH came from buyers.
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.
This token does not share its name and symbol with any real tokenized share.
The explorer has not tagged this contract as a scam.
A test sale worked from two separate new wallets.
A test buy worked too. We ran it at this chain's live gas price (41052000 wei).
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.
100.0% of this V3 pool's liquidity is locked in Pons Launch Locker, a trusted locker contract.
Its audited code has no function that can withdraw a position.
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 paid promotion found on DexScreener.
This token's code doesn't match any code template we know of.
This contract was 79 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