We couldn't finish this scan. Scan again before you trade.
No current verdict.
Scanned 10d ago. Scan again before you trade.
- FAILHolder concentration
- FAILDangerous functions
- FAILLaunchpad provenance
No current verdict. The last complete check is from 2026-10-20 under an older formula (v1.61). A new check is underway.
We couldn't finish this scan. Scan again before you trade.
No current verdict.
Scanned 10d ago. Scan again before you trade.
Price
—
Liquidity
—
Volume 24h
—
FDV
—
Buys 24h
—
Age
—
Top 10 holders hold 100.0% of the circulating float.
On raw total supply that's 0.5%, because 99.5% of total supply sits in liquidity pools and is excluded from the float. The float figure is measured against supply outside the pools, so it also moves when pool liquidity moves. The single largest holder is , a plain wallet, holding 88.0% of the float on its own.
Privileged capabilities present and reachable via a live or unresolved authority: a switch that can block transfers or selling.
This token was deployed by a contract, but that deployer is not in the launchpad registry, so its provenance could not be attributed.
38.8% of the token supply was bought for 1.0000 ETH by 1 wallet in the transaction that opened its pool, before outside buyers could trade.
On that scan, 8 checks had missing or incomplete data. (Shortened from the original receipt.)
These are gaps in what we could see, not problems found in this token.
Applies to: Funder rug history, Deployer launch history, Funding lineage
Many people launch through the same contract, so rugs among the tokens it made are not one launcher's record. The transaction that created it was sent by , but a transaction sender can be the pad's own relayer rather than the launcher, so no history is attributed to that address.
Many people launch through the same contract, so its launch history is nobody's in particular. The transaction that created it was sent by , but a transaction sender can be the pad's own relayer rather than the launcher, so no history is attributed to that address.
Money paid into a contract like that is nobody's funding history in particular. The transaction that created it was sent by , but a transaction sender can be the pad's own relayer rather than the launcher, so no history is attributed to that address.
We could not read this token's market data on this scan, so its pool depth was not measured.
This says what we could see, not what the token is. The opening token deposit into pool contained no ETH. Its opening ETH came from buyers.
Market data unavailable for FDV/liquidity ratio.
Market data unavailable for turnover.
Market data unavailable for wash-trade analysis.
This token was created by a contract, which sends no transactions of its own, so fee or limit changes by its creator could not be checked.
Pool creation time unavailable.
No canonical asset collision.
No scam tag on the explorer.
Buy and sell both simulate cleanly, including as two independent fresh wallets paying this chain's live gas price (40856000 wei).
No liquidity removal by this token's creator or the wallet that launched it from its own pool.
Other wallets removed liquidity from it 5 times, so this does not mean the pool is intact. None in the creator's recent history either.
This token is not on our list of confirmed rugs.
No prior honeypot on record.
No pump-and-dump on record.
LP locked: 100.0% of this V3 pool's liquidity is held by EMOJI_LpCustodian_UniV3, a trusted locker contract, and its audited code has no function that can withdraw a position.
This pool is on Uniswap V3 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.
No owner() function.
No single owner key surface.
Not an upgradeable proxy.
The code is fixed.
Contract source is partially verified on the explorer, matched from another address with identical bytecode rather than proven against this one.
No active paid boosts on DexScreener.
The paid-order list could not be read this scan, so purchased listings are not covered by this result.
Bytecode did not match any known clone template.
Contract deployed 1545h ago.
Fingerprint UNKNOWN, but the source is partially verified (bytecode-database match), so the code is readable.