Chain 4663 · Pin 55,558,221 · Unfinalized head
0xfa89ed9d12bf74add8253ddfaa426c4d8a0fa603
The Answer
No mint, pause, blacklist, upgrade or ownership selector was found in the deployed runtime, and no DELEGATECALL is present, at the pinned block. No match is not proof of absence: non-standard dispatchers and packed tables can hide functionality from a PUSH4 scan.
The paired asset USDG (0x5fc5360d0400a0fd4f2af552add042d716f1d168) and its implementation exposes: grantRole(bytes32,address), mint(address,uint256), revokeRole(bytes32,address), upgradeTo(address), upgradeToAndCall(address,bytes). For a regulated tokenized security this is expected and appropriate: the issuer must be able to mirror corporate actions, redemptions and legal orders. It is a dependency of this market, not a finding against it.
Conditional On
Chain 4663 at block 55,558,221. The deployed runtime of 0xfa89ed9d12bf74add8253ddfaa426c4d8a0fa603, 3,248 bytes, read at that block. Deployed-runtime PUSH4 selector scan plus EIP-1967 proxy/beacon resolution, read directly from the chain RPC at the pinned block.
The market figures beside this entry are a third-party snapshot. They were not measured by us and they carry no pin.
Stale When
Any state change after block 55,558,221 supersedes this pin. An upgrade or a role change on the paired asset changes the dependency reading. The pons factory deploying a different runtime would put a token outside what was read here. The pin was an unfinalized head, so a reorganisation at that depth invalidates the pin itself.
Strongest Contrary Evidence
A matched selector proves the four bytes appear in the deployed runtime. It does not prove the function is reachable, unguarded, or semantically what its name suggests.
No match is NOT absence: non-standard dispatchers, packed selector tables and fallback-only routing hide functionality from a PUSH4 scan.
Role holders were not enumerated. Where a contract uses AccessControl rather than Ownable, this pass does not establish WHO holds the privileged roles.