Robinhood Chain·Scanned 05 Nov 2026, 23:56 UTC
BACKSTOP
Verdict
44/100 safety
Unverified token code, no owner functions seen; sells work at 0% tax, but one funder's wallets hold ~28%.
Linked wallets control a large share of this token, and liquidity is small. One funder's five wallets hold about 28% of supply, and all linked groups hold about 33%. Pool liquidity is only about $7.3k and is held by an unverified contract, with no lock or burn. The token code is unverified, and the launchpad owner can change fees, the router and the liquidity deployer. On the plus side, the token shows only standard functions, and buys and sells work with 0% token tax.
Score breakdown
- Contract55
- Token28
- Social / X45
- Website40
Higher is safer · 0 = worst · 100 = best
- Yes
- 0%
- Unknown
- 0% / 0%
NarrativeCooling
Trend scout · Grok 4.7 · X search via twitterapi.io
32/100 heat
A separate score, not part of the safety score: hype never makes a contract safer.
- refundable token launchpad
- Robinhood Chain launches
- memecoin launchpads
- Fit
- Core: the product is this narrative
- Buzz
- Mixed28 posts from 18 accounts; 0% of authors have accounts under 30 days old; 21 post(s) with engagement that does not fit the follower count.
- Momentum
- Project mentions roughly jumped from about 1 to ~1600 week over week (one-page estimate, mostly same-day replies); token-launchpad talk roughly flat (~273 vs ~384).
Backstop is pitched as a Robinhood Chain launchpad with refunds until graduation and a fee-funded floor. Mentions spiked in one day, but almost all replies have zero likes and tiny views, mostly follow-back or DM requests. A few users asked about deleted posts, repeat launches, and liquidity. Broader launchpad talk is flat.
Posts and accounts (5 posts)
- @Legend_Britney · 05 Nov 2026, 22:59 UTC
“$BACKSTOP 🔥 A launchpad built different. Your floor has your back!”
- @The1onerangerr · 05 Nov 2026, 22:38 UTC
“You’ve deleted all the older messages now 🤦♂️ doesn’t look good”
Who pushes it
- @Legend_Britney · 2.5K followers
- @dex_kolwatcher · 9K followers
Competing for the same narrative
beepzfun, HoodMiners, BSCook, Corla, supanova
Posts, last 7 days vs the 7 before
- project: ~1598 vs 1 (up 1598.0× (rough))
- token launchpad: ~273 vs 384 (flat (rough))
- memecoin: ~13724 (no comparison)
~ = estimated from one page of results
Measured in code from 28 posts by 18 accounts: 0% fresh accounts (< 30 days), 0% near-copies, top 3 accounts wrote 29%.
X posts searched from 2026-10-06 to 2026-11-06 (UTC). Post links come only from the X search results.
- MC at check
- $9.4K
- MC now
- no live price
- Since check
- —
- Liquidity
- $5.7K
Live chart
The chart updates live; “MC at check” above is the market cap when this check ran.
Key findings
- HighClaim contradicted: Tokens launched on the platform feature a fee-funded on-chain redemption floor tracked in native coin that contracts will always buy back at, with pull-out refunds available before
- HighLaunch sniped: 2 wallets took 100% of supply in 10 seconds
- HighDump risk: launch wallets still hold 33.1% of supply
- MediumSource code is not verified
- GoodBuy and sell both work with 0% token tax
What would change the verdict
- Raises safety:Token source is verified on the explorer and matches the launchpad template → contract score up
- Lowers safety:The unlabelled contract holding 100% of the main pool's liquidity withdraws it → down
- Raises safety:Pool liquidity is shown locked or burned, or the holder contract is verified as non-withdrawable → up
Unlock PRO for this project
A one-time payment adds hourly re-checks for good, a 7-day watch, questions to the jury, the launch map and deeper social forensics.
Findings
13 findingsRisks (8)
HighClaim contradicted: Tokens launched on the platform feature a fee-funded on-chain redemption floor tracked in native coin that contracts will always buy back at, with pull-out refunds available beforeclaims-mismatchDeterministic
The project claims token burns / buybacks, but no tokens of this contract were ever sent to a burn address or destroyed.
Evidence
Show source
Refundable bonded launches on Robinhood Chain. Bond toward a cap, pull out anytime before graduation, then graduate into a Uniswap V4 pool.- on-chainTransfer events of 0xa5a58a72047d67d27f4e3055494d53ee6901d99e to burn addresses + balanceOf(0x…dEaD)
Confirmed by: facts
HighLaunch sniped: 2 wallets took 100% of supply in 10 secondssnipersDeterministic
The launch was captured: 2 wallets bought 100% of the supply within 10 seconds. A small, fast group set the early price and could sell into everyone who bought later — bad for launch fairness and a strong insider/bot signal. They now hold 0% of supply, so current dump pressure from them is low — most of it was already sold, i.e. they exited on later buyers.
Evidence
- on-chainsnipers: windowBlocks=100, wallets=2, pctSupplyBought=100.0003, pctSupplyHeldNow=0.0003
- on-chaintoken.snipers
Show source
pctSupplyBought: 100.0003, pctSupplyHeldNow: 0.0003
Confirmed by: facts, claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol
HighDump risk: launch wallets still hold 33.1% of supplyholdersDeterministic
Sniper / insider / bundled launch wallets still hold about 33.1% of the supply. If they sell, the price can collapse — current dump pressure is HIGH.
Evidence
- on-chainheld now: snipers 0.0003%, insiders 0%, clusters 33.15%
- on-chaintoken.clusters[0] funder 0xec5266c9e44631e1ba22fd6377c38130c1f3b738
Show source
pctSupplyHeldNow: 28.0162 - on-chaintoken.topHolders
Show source
0xd341A57Dc7c122Fe4b176536eCeAD58AF8B7d9e6 6.9528%, 0xc9186c13513123c7D14AEEb2A6b55B9eBc7e9d88 6.1641%, 0x741B828ACEba9A22e58913592f8242688032b884 6.0678% - on-chaintoken.clusters[1] funder 0xf70da97812cb96acdf810712aa562db8dfa3dbef
Show source
pctSupplyHeldNow: 3.1629 - on-chaintoken.clusters[2] funder 0x18363e81880c98a1f357f9b6ed58488293b6d29b
Show source
pctSupplyHeldNow: 1.9682
Confirmed by: facts, claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7
MediumSource code is not verifiedotherDeterministic
The contract source is not published on the explorer, so nobody can read what it really does. The analysis relies on bytecode only.
Evidence
- on-chainexplorer: no verified source for 0xa5A58A72047d67d27f4E3055494d53ee6901D99e
- on-chaincontract.verified = false
Show source
sourceFileCount: 0
Confirmed by: facts, claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7
MediumMain pool liquidity is unlocked and held by an unverified contractliquidityAI
The main Uniswap v4 pool has about $7,293 of liquidity. Its position is held 100% by an unlabelled contract, 0xb8ff…2066, and 0% of it is locked or burned. This is probably the launchpad's liquidity deployer or vault. Its code and admin are unknown, so we cannot confirm that the liquidity cannot be withdrawn. If whoever controls it can remove the position, holders would be left with no exit liquidity. The two other pools (worth $4 and $2) are held by unlocked wallets but are insignificant.
Evidence
- on-chaintoken.liquidity pool 0x69af668f5ba32c2a71aca611034ea03ecad64f278d06cb5383de5902dfe0f96c
Show source
liquidityUsd: 7293, lpBurnedPct: 0, lpLockedPct: 0 - on-chaintoken.notes v4 position holders
Show source
v4 position liquidity holders: 0xb8ff1eab09d81965866d4ecde00d561d65682066 [other: unlabelled contract] 100%
Confirmed by: claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol
MediumLaunchpad owner can change fees, router, treasury and liquidity deployerownershipAI
The factory that created the token (0xb48E…26a1) is owned by 0x785F…961f. It exposes setRouter, setTreasury, setConfig and claimDevTokens. The related launchpad contract 0xf370…a54D has the same owner. It exposes setProtocolFeeBps, setMaxAllocBps, setTreasury, setLiquidityDeployer and setVaultDeployer. None of these contracts are verified, so caps, timelocks and whether the changes affect already-launched tokens cannot be checked. In the worst case, the owner could raise protocol fees or point the router or liquidity deployer at its own contracts.
Evidence
- on-chainrelated creator-factory 0xb48E5659251e60629C619686f0134361914026a1 owner=0x785F5221c9fe9653Cf71859C8E606Af29814961f
Show source
fn setRouter(address) ... fn setTreasury(address) ... fn setConfig(uint256,uint256,uint256) - on-chainrelated 0xf37087FD24Df9df282c81602eb7026DF1D3Da54D owner=0x785F5221c9fe9653Cf71859C8E606Af29814961f
Show source
fn setProtocolFeeBps(uint16) ... fn setLiquidityDeployer(address) ... fn setVaultDeployer(address)
Confirmed by: claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7 · Disputed by: gpt-5.6-sol
LowDocs say launched tokens are auto-verified, but this one is notclaims-mismatchAI
Backstop's docs say every token launched on the pad has a fixed supply with no mint, owner, pause, or blacklist, and that each token is verified on the explorer by bytecode match. The on-chain basics for this $BACKSTOP contract say ownership has not been renounced and the contract is not verified. If an owner still exists, holders cannot treat the 'no owner' claim as true until the source is published and the owner role is shown to be powerless or gone.
Evidence
Show source
1,000,000,000 tokens (18 decimals), fixed. No mint, owner, pause, or blacklist.Show source
Each launched token is a fresh , verified automatically by matching bytecode.- on-chainownerRenounced=false; verified=false; target=0xa5a58a72047d67d27f4e3055494d53ee6901d99e
Confirmed by: grok-4.7 · Disputed by: claude-opus-5.5, gpt-5.6-sol
LowClaimed 7-day team-token lock is short and not shown on-chainclaims-mismatchAI
The project account says 26.29M $BACKSTOP from the team's first buy is locked on-chain for 7 days and tells people to check the token page. The contract basics we were given do not show a locker balance or unlock time, so the lock is unverified here. Even if the post is accurate, a 7-day lock is short: the team could sell that stack soon after it unlocks.
Evidence
Show source
🔒 Dev tokens LOCKED for 7 days. 26.29M $BACKSTOP from the team's first buy is locked onchain. Verify it yourself on the token page.
Confirmed by: grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol · Disputed by: claude-opus-5.5
Positive signals (1)
PositiveBuy and sell both work with 0% token taxhoneypotAI
On a fork, a real buy and sell both succeeded at exactly the expected amounts, with 0% buy, sell and transfer tax. A second wallet that received tokens by transfer could also sell, and a sell after one hour still worked. Only the 1% v4 pool LP fee applies. There is no honeypot behaviour today.
Evidence
- forksimulation canBuy/canSell
Show source
buyTaxPct: 0, sellTaxPct: 0, transferTaxPct: 0 - forksimulation notes
Show source
second wallet (received via transfer) could sell
Confirmed by: claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol
Notes (4)
InfoLaunched via factory; deployer never held tokensdeployer-historyAI
The token was created by factory 0xb48E…26a1, and 100% of supply was minted to it as the launch or liquidity source. Deployer 0x4174…265d never received tokens and holds 0%. No deployer history is recorded.
Evidence
- on-chaintoken.notes
Show source
Initial supply minted to contract 0xb48e5659251e60629c619686f0134361914026a1 (100% — bonding curve / launchpad / vault) - on-chaintoken.notes
Show source
Deployer 0x4174b6b538a719a6dcf863a04729603fa07a265d holds 0% now
Confirmed by: claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol
InfoWebsite buy test did not finish due to our tool timeoutwebsiteAI
The website buy test failed because of our own browser-driving AI timeout, not an on-chain revert. No transactions or approvals were made. The sell test was skipped. The test URL pointed to a different token page (0xe1dC…a7C4). Nothing about the site's transaction behaviour was verified.
Evidence
- forkdappTests 'Buy token' step error
Show source
LLM error: The operation was aborted due to timeout
Confirmed by: claude-opus-5.5, grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol
InfoUser alleges deleted posts and repeat launches (unconfirmed)socialAI
A reply accuses the account of deleting older messages and of launching this token multiple times, and says DMs are closed. Searches for the contract address and for $BACKSTOP relaunch talk did not turn up corroborating posts, archives, or a second contract address. Treat this as an unverified allegation, not proof of a relaunch or a cover-up.
Evidence
Show source
@Backstop_Fund You’ve deleted all the older messages now 🤦♂️ doesn’t look goodShow source
How many times has this token been launched ? I’ve been going through your x post, seems like it’s been launched multiple times.
Confirmed by: grok-4.7, gpt-5.6-sol
InfoX account and domain created the same day, seven weeks before launchsocialAI
@backstop_fund was created on 2026-09-19 and backstop.fund was registered the same day, with Wayback first seeing the site the next day. The token was deployed on 2026-11-05. That lines up with a new project, not an old unrelated account that was renamed for this launch. Followers are only 45, and launch posts have small engagement, which fits the size rather than a bought audience. No team names are published, so 'who runs this' stays unverifiable.
Evidence
Show source
It's live. $BACKSTOP The token for the only launchpad where the floor has your back.
Confirmed by: grok-4.7 · Disputed by: gpt-5.6-sol
Score breakdown
Higher is safer. The overall is the weighted average of the assessed parts, then capped by hard facts.
Contract
weight 45%55Capped · max 60source code not verified → max 60
Only standard ERC-20 functions and a clean 0% tax buy/sell simulation, but the token and all launchpad contracts are unverified and the launchpad owner can change fees, router and liquidity deployer.
Why this score
Raised the score
- Buy and sell work with 0% token tax
- Second wallet could sell; sell after 1h works
- Not a proxy; no owner functions in the selector list
Lowered the score
- Token source code not verified
- Launchpad owner can change router, treasury, fees and liquidity deployer
- Launchpad contracts and v4 hook unverified
Token
weight 30%28Capped · max 40launch sniped: 100% of supply bought by 2 wallets in 10 seconds → max 40
A single funder's five wallets hold about 28% of supply (about 33% for all linked groups), against only about $7.3k of unlocked pool liquidity.
Why this score
Raised the score
- Deployer holds no tokens
- Launch-window wallets now hold almost nothing
Lowered the score
- Launch window flagged: 2 wallets took 100% of supply in 10 seconds
- Linked wallet clusters hold about 33% of supply
- Main pool liquidity (~$7.3k) neither locked nor burned
- LP position held by an unverified, unlabelled contract
Social / X
weight 15%45A small, new X account that matches the site, with an unverified 7-day team-lock claim and an unconfirmed user allegation of deleted posts.
Why this score
Raised the score
- X account and domain created together, consistent with a new project
- No confirmed scam or rug reports
Lowered the score
- Only about 45 followers and no named team
- Claimed 7-day dev-token lock not shown in on-chain facts
- User alleges deleted posts and repeat launches (unverified)
Website
weight 10%40A minimal, seven-week-old site whose floor/buyback and auto-verification claims are contradicted or cannot be confirmed on-chain.
Why this score
Raised the score
- Site and X describe the same product
- Docs and terms pages exist
Lowered the score
- Buyback/floor claim not supported by on-chain facts
- Docs say launched tokens are auto-verified; this one is not
- Domain registered only about seven weeks before launch