Skip to content

Robinhood Chain·Scanned 05 Nov 2026, 23:56 UTC

BACKSTOP

0xa5a58a72047d67d27f4e3055494d53ee6901d99e

Verdict

High risk

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

  • Contract
    55
  • Token
    28
  • Social / X
    45
  • Website
    40

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!”

  • @dex_kolwatcher · 05 Nov 2026, 21:24 UTC

    “Detect PAID DEXScreener: $BACKSTOP”

  • @The1onerangerr · 05 Nov 2026, 22:35 UTC

    “How many times has this token been launched ?”

  • @Olams_sol · 05 Nov 2026, 22:18 UTC

    “Can creators also drain liquidity”

  • @The1onerangerr · 05 Nov 2026, 22:38 UTC

    “You’ve deleted all the older messages now 🤦‍♂️ doesn’t look good”

Who pushes it

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

$BACKSTOP · Live price chart

Live chart

The chart updates live; “MC at check” above is the market cap when this check ran.

LIVE
DexScreener · uniswap · pair 0x69af…f96c

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.

Post on XView on explorer ↗

Findings

13 findings

Risks (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

    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

    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

    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%
    55
    Capped · max 60

    source 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%
    28
    Capped · max 40

    launch 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%
    45

    A 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%
    40

    A 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