Smart wallets or swap routers?
A contract flag is not a trader-versus-router test. On Robinhood Chain, eight of the wallets we track all report as contracts — and all eight are ordinary accounts delegating to the same smart-account implementation.
The addresses
Shared implementation
Simple7702Account
0xe6Cae83BdE06E4c305530e199D7217f42808555BVerified Solidity contract, compiler v0.8.28. Every wallet below delegates to this exact address.
Example tracked wallet
0xefe9764acb…
0xefe9764acb00822338a80f907075c53f60a5781eReports as a contract with proxy type eip7702 — but it is a trading account, with 50 observed token buys.
What the data shows
Eight tracked wallets, one implementation
We queried the explorer for each of the Robinhood Chain wallets we track. All eight return is_contract = true. All eight also return proxy_type = eip7702, and all eight delegate to the same implementation address. That is not eight protocols — it is eight accounts using the same smart-account code.
EIP-7702 is why the flag is misleading
EIP-7702 lets an ordinary account attach contract code to itself. The result is a normal wallet, controlled by a key, that an explorer reports as a contract because code is now present at that address. Filtering a dataset on "is this a contract" therefore removes exactly the traders you were trying to keep.
Real infrastructure looks different
Genuine protocol addresses on the same chain carry names and different proxy types. In the holders of a single popular token we found UniswapV3Pool entries, a PoolManager, a CLPool, a LiFiDiamond using EIP-2535, and minimal EIP-1167 clones. Those are labelled, tagged and named — the information you need is there, it just is not the boolean.
What this cost us, measured
Our Robinhood scan filtered holders with "not a contract". On one popular token, of the 50 largest holders that filter kept 31 and discarded 19. Thirteen of the discarded addresses were real accounts delegating via EIP-7702 — holders with balances up to 9,998,380 tokens, excluded from the supply split because they looked like contracts. The five genuinely infrastructural addresses in the same sample (two UniswapV3Pool entries, a PoolManager, a VestingManager and a token adapter) are identifiable by name and proxy type, and are still excluded.
What we changed in our own reading of the data
We replaced the boolean test with an explicit rule: an address counts as a holder if it is a plain account or an EIP-7702 delegated account, and is excluded if it is a named or non-delegated contract. We also drop the burn addresses. Had we kept the boolean, our Robinhood supply-split verdicts would have been computed over an arbitrarily reduced holder set — the same mistake we are warning about here.
Infrastructure we found while checking
Named or differently-proxied addresses seen among the holders of a single Robinhood Chain token. Each one is distinguishable from a trading account without guessing.
The same flag, two very different things
All rows verified through the Robinhood Chain explorer.
| Address | Explorer reports | Proxy type | What it actually is |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0xc86896c2…68fb8be | contract | eip7702 | Trading account (tracked) |
| 0xb7749bd1…7fc938e | contract | eip7702 | Trading account (tracked) |
| 0x696cba91…2c77e03 | contract | eip7702 | Trading account (tracked) |
| 0x74002fde…9f4a022a | contract | eip7702 | Trading account (tracked) |
| 0xefe9764a…60a5781e | contract | eip7702 | Trading account (tracked) |
| 0x1A18a8b9…F1FAA4E7 | not a contract | — | Large holder (plain account) |
| 0xA70fc67C…574E313 | contract | named | UniswapV3Pool |
| 0xB477751B…72414Af3 | contract | eip2535 | LiFiDiamond (bridge router) |
Snapshot taken 2026-09-10. Counts and labels change as the chain grows; the point is the method, not the exact rows.
Limitations
- •This is a methodology finding about how to read an explorer, not an accusation against any wallet.
- •EIP-7702 delegation can be set and removed; a wallet that reads as eip7702 today may not next week. Re-check before relying on it.
- •Sharing one smart-account implementation does not imply any relationship between the wallets that use it — it is a widely used implementation, and code reuse is not coordination.
- •The infrastructure examples come from the holders and transfers of individual tokens we sampled; the list is illustrative rather than exhaustive.
- •A named pool appearing in a token holder list is expected behaviour for a market, not a signal about intent.
Check it yourself
Open any of the addresses on the Robinhood Chain explorer and compare the reported contract flag with the proxy type and the implementation address. The two fields disagree often, and the second one is the informative one.