DexProof recorded ALEX as CAUTION on Robinhood Chain under formula v2.0.1, in verdict #1439 published 28 Oct 2026 (UTC). Of 28 checks, 16 passed, 2 warned, 1 failed and 9 could not be run.
Trade with care. Read the warnings first.
Top 10 holders hold 97% of the tokens in circulation.
Scanned 2d ago. Scan again before you trade.
Price
—
Liquidity
—
Volume 24h
—
FDV
—
Buys 24h
—
Age
—
Top 10 holders hold 97% of the tokens in circulation.
The largest holder is , a smart-account wallet, holding 25.7% of the tokens in circulation on its own. Against total supply, the top 10 hold 2.0%. Liquidity pools hold 0.0% 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. A further 97.9% of total supply is unsold and still sits on this token's own launch curve, waiting for buyers, so we leave it out of the tokens in circulation.
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.
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.
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.
This token does not share its name and symbol with any real tokenized share.
The explorer has not tagged this contract as a scam.
No liquidity removal by the wallet that launched this token from its own pool.
Other wallets removed liquidity from it 3 times, so this does not mean the pool is intact. 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 deployer holds no V3 liquidity positions, so none of them are in this token's pool.
This covers positions held through the V3 position manager only. This token trades in 3 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.
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 34 days old at this scan.
Launched on Pons V2.
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 verified, so anyone can read the code.
We could not match it to a known template.
Robinhood