Wrapped Ether (WETH) — what its owner can do
Who can do these things
No privileged address could be identified. This is not the same as there being none — see the limitation below.
Only named getters were read. If this contract uses role-based access control without enumeration, its role holders cannot be listed, and the absence of a controller here does not mean there is none.
What the contract permits
Can new tokens be created?
The supply is fixed. No function exists to create new tokens.
- No mint entry point in the contract ABI
Can transfers be blocked?
No mechanism was found that would let anyone block a transfer.
- No address blocking, pause, trading switch or transfer cap in the ABI
Is there a trading tax?
No trading tax mechanism was found.
- No tax setter or tax rate in the ABI
Can the contract logic be replaced?
The contract logic is fixed and cannot be replaced.
- No proxy pattern detected in the deployed bytecode
Is the liquidity locked?
The trading liquidity can be withdrawn by whoever holds the LP tokens.
Withdrawing liquidity leaves holders with tokens and no pool to sell them into. This is the mechanism behind most losses described as rug pulls.
- Uniswap V2 USDC pool at 0xB4e16d0168e52d35CaCD2c6185b44281Ec28C9Dc: 10,111,051 USDC of depth, 0% of its LP supply burned
- Uniswap V2 USDT pool at 0x0d4a11d5EEaaC28EC3F61d100daF4d40471f1852: 7,296,503 USDT of depth, 0% of its LP supply burned
- SushiSwap USDC pool at 0x397FF1542f962076d0BFE58eA045FfA2d347ACa0: 139,216 USDC of depth, 0% of its LP supply burned
- SushiSwap USDT pool at 0x06da0fd433C1A5d7a4faa01111c044910A184553: 312,746 USDT of depth, 0% of its LP supply burned
Who holds the unburned LP tokens cannot be established: ERC20 holders cannot be enumerated over RPC. It may sit in a time-lock contract, or in a wallet, and this check cannot tell those apart.