Rivalz Network

Liquidity and market dynamics score 61 out of 100. Volume relative to market cap is high (Vol/MCap = 13.45%) and there is moderate 24h trading activity (24h volume: $152,076). Exchange listing data shows 7 exchanges total, with 4 marked green, 3 yellow, and none red. Overall, liquidity and market presence appear adequate but not exceptionally deep.

Team credibility score 34 out of 100. Public records show the team is anonymous. There is no deploy or genesis date available and no audit data provided. The deployer address is recorded (deployer_known: 70), which adds some traceability, but the lack of verifiable team identity and missing lifecycle/audit context reduce confidence.

Social and behavioral score 80 out of 100. Social audience data is present, with Telegram at 55,458 and Twitter linked (linked) and showing limited metrics (social_audience: 53). Risk-signal checks are clean in the provided snapshot: 0 allegations, 0 bad press, 0 regulatory, and 0 incidents. Enrichment record data is unavailable, but the observed behavioral flags are strongly positive.

Contract mechanics score 99 out of 100. On-chain contract checks look robust: at least one contract is verified, no honeypot behavior is detected, and the code is open source. Minting is disabled (mintauthority: 100) and ownership privileges and balance manipulation checks are strong (ownershipsafety: 100; balances locked). Trading tax is 0% for buys and sells. There is an upgradable proxy design flagged at 60, but overall safety controls and a defined hard cap (hard cap: 5,000,000,000) are favorable.

Holder distribution score 0 out of 100. The provided holder concentration metrics indicate extreme centralization: top 10 wallets hold 100.0% of supply, top 50 wallets also hold 100.0%, and the largest non-filtered wallet holds 100.0%. The total holder count is 1 (holder_count: 0), which matches the “very few holders” flag. This concentration materially increases custody and manipulation risk even if the contract logic is sound.

Inherent crypto risk: Even with strong contract safety signals (e.g., mint disabled and no honeypot), this asset’s safety is limited by very concentrated ownership and an upgradable proxy pattern. In practice, token holders should treat upgrades and centralized control as key risk factors and also account for the possibility that liquidity may not be deep enough to absorb large sell pressure.