Don't trade this token.
This token's creator removed liquidity from this token's pool.
Scanned 2d ago. Scan again before you trade.
- FAILDeployer pulled liquidity
- FAILHolder concentration
- FAILSerial clone
DexProof recorded LLL as CRITICAL on Robinhood Chain under formula v2.0.1, in verdict #1418 published 28 Oct 2026 (UTC). Of 28 checks, 14 passed, 3 warned, 3 failed and 8 could not be run.
Don't trade this token.
This token's creator removed liquidity from this token's pool.
Scanned 2d ago. Scan again before you trade.
Price
—
Liquidity
—
Volume 24h
—
FDV
—
Buys 24h
—
Age
—
This token's creator removed liquidity from this token's pool.
It made 1 withdrawal on Uniswap V4, and that withdrawal closed the position completely.
Top 10 holders hold 100% of the tokens in circulation.
The largest holder is , a plain wallet, holding 100.0% of the tokens in circulation on its own.
This exact code was used by 13 other tokens, and 13 of them lost most of their value or had their liquidity removed.
They include 0x324d…3545, 0x39aa…5598, 0x9465…d56a. That describes those tokens, and it does not say who created this one.
We couldn't finish the sell test on the other exchanges we checked.
We couldn't get a clear result from any pool we tested, so we can't say whether this token can be sold.
This token crashed after launch.
On 2026-10-15, its price or liquidity fell 95% or more below its 72-hour peak, and a second data source confirmed it. This often happens when early buyers sell. On its own it does not mean the contract or its liquidity is unsafe.
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.
These are gaps in what we could see, not problems found in this token.
The creator's wallet was funded by , a shared source that has sent starting funds to 16 different wallets.
A shared source such as an exchange funds many unrelated people, so its record does not name any one of them.
This pool has no liquidity at its current price, so there is no share of it to check.
One other pool charges a fee too large to trade through, so nothing a holder owns is at risk there. This token trades in 10 pools. We couldn't measure their sizes, so the pool named here may not be its main market. The full pool list is in the evidence.
This deployer was funded by , a wallet that has sent starting funds to 16 different wallets.
That is a shared source such as an exchange, so its history says nothing about this deployer.
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.
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 deployer has no earlier launches on record.
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.
We saw no fee or limit changes by the deployer in the transactions we searched.
We only looked at the deployer's recent history, so changes by a separate fee owner would not show.
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 contract was 14 days old at this scan.
No launchpad deployed this token.
It was deployed directly, which counts neither for nor against it. The on-chain checks decide this one.
The source is verified, so anyone can read the code.
We could not match it to a known template.