autorenew

meme-insider.com LOGO Meme Insider

GREN on Base (0x6ffb33623c802c6bfc3d4923d80839edfacdfa50): What We Know, Risks, and How to Verify

GREN on Base (0x6ffb33623c802c6bfc3d4923d80839edfacdfa50): What We Know, Risks, and How to Verify

Editor's Pick: Check GREN's chart or trade directly using gmgn.ai web version or Telegram Bot to stay ahead of the market.

As of September 5, 2025, the token tied to 0x6ffb33623c802c6bfc3d4923d80839edfacdfa50 on Base is surrounded by conflicting data. Some searches on Base explorers return no clear match, while other views show a token page for “GREN/Grenade Token” with minimal on-chain activity. Below is a clear, step-by-step rundown of what’s verifiable, what looks inconsistent, and how to protect yourself before interacting with this contract.

TL;DR

  • Contract queried: 0x6ffb33623c802c6bfc3d4923d80839edfacdfa50 on Base.
  • Identity is inconsistent across sources: it’s referenced as GREN, GREEN, or “Grenade Token.”
  • On-chain signals on Base point to low activity: very few holders (around a dozen), unverified contract code, and a price reading of $0.00 on explorer views.
  • Some third-party listings tie “GREEN/GREN” activity to Solana’s Raydium and to CEX quotes (e.g., MEXC), but these may not represent the same asset as the Base contract above.
  • Treat this as high risk until contract verification, official links, and clear liquidity are visible on Base.

What the explorers show

  • Base contract: Check the token page on BaseScan. Views can fluctuate across time and mirror indexing status, but where a page appears, it indicates:
    • Source code not verified (no public auditability of token logic).
    • Very small holder count (about 12 holders reported).
    • Limited transfers and no meaningful price/liquidity surfaced.

This thin footprint suggests either an early or inactive deployment, or one with negligible adoption.

Name and symbol confusion (GREN vs. GREEN vs. Grenade)

  • The Base address above has been associated with “GREN” and “Grenade Token” in some contexts. Meanwhile, separate “GREEN/GREN” tickers exist on other chains and listings.
  • Similar tickers on other chains:
  • These are separate contracts on different networks. A shared ticker does not imply it’s the same project or team.

Contract status and mechanics

  • Code verification: Not verified on Base at the time of writing. That means you can’t confirm key behaviors (e.g., fees, mint/burn rights, trading restrictions) from source.
  • Deflationary claims: Other “Grenade Token” deployments have advertised a 1% burn per transfer. There’s no confirmed evidence this Base contract implements the same logic. Without verified code, assume nothing.

Trading and liquidity reality check

  • Base activity looks minimal: No clear on-chain liquidity or active pools are visible from explorer reads; price shows $0.00 on some BaseScan views.
  • Cross-chain claims exist: Some listings mention activity on Solana’s Raydium and quote prices on MEXC for a “GREEN/GREN” token. These may refer to a different asset than the Base address above. Don’t assume equivalence across chains or tickers.
  • If you intend to investigate trading further, always confirm the contract you interact with:

Important: If no pool shows up when you paste the contract—and explorers show negligible transfers—treat it as illiquid or unlisted.

Key risks to understand

  • Unverified contract: Without verified source, you cannot confirm taxes, blacklists, minting, or ownership powers. This is a common risk factor in honeypots and stealth-tax contracts.
  • Identity ambiguity: Multiple tokens with “GREN/GREEN” naming across chains create confusion. Bad actors sometimes exploit ticker overlap to mislead buyers.
  • Low liquidity and holders: Tiny holder counts and no visible liquidity make price discovery unreliable and exits difficult.
  • Potential for abandoned or spoofed deployments: Minimal on-chain activity plus no official links (site, socials, docs) increases the chance the deployment is inactive or unofficial.
  • Cross-chain mismatch: A ticker active on Solana or a CEX does not imply the Base contract is the same asset.

How to verify before you trade (DYOR checklist)

  • Confirm the contract on Base:
    • Open BaseScan, review holders, transfers, and any contract verification updates.
  • Look for official links:
    • A legitimate project usually publishes an official website, X/Telegram, and docs that reference the exact Base contract. If you can’t find them, proceed with extreme caution.
  • Validate liquidity yourself:
  • Test for taxes/locks:
    • Make only a tiny test trade to detect high taxes or transfer failures. Verify you can both buy and sell.
  • Inspect holders:
    • If top wallets hold most of the supply or the deployer still controls liquidity, exit risk is high.
  • Watch for renounced ownership or timelocks:
    • If ownership isn’t renounced and no timelocks exist on critical functions, the contract can be changed in ways that hurt holders.

Bottom line

  • The Base contract 0x6ffb33623c802c6bfc3d4923d80839edfacdfa50 shows minimal on-chain adoption, unverified code, and no clear liquidity at the time of writing.
  • Conflicting references (GREN/GREEN/Grenade) across chains and listings increase the likelihood of ticker confusion rather than a single cohesive project.
  • Until the Base contract is verified and liquid pools are visible on Base DEXs—with clear official links from a credible team—treat this as a high-risk asset. If you proceed, size positions conservatively, verify every step, and use tools like BaseScan and GMGN.AI’s live dashboard for this contract: https://gmgn.ai/base/token/fV1R5sZ5_0x6ffb33623c802c6bfc3d4923d80839edfacdfa50

Further reading and comparisons:

Tags:
#base #contract verification #due diligence #gren #meme tokens #on-chain analysis #token risks

You might be interested