| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 94.4% | Holder distribution | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 402 | Token contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x10d5b0…9c4a3d |
| Holders | 402 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x3931da…4cc857 | 20.00% |
| #2 | 0x0938c6…a4589e | 20.00% |
| #3 | 0xe68ee8…83f2b9 | 10.00% |
| #4 | 0x1ab497…8f8f23 | 10.00% |
| #5 | 0x0d0707…b492fe | 10.00% |
This automated check found that MUR's contract blocked a simulated sell transaction, which is the strongest signal this tool can produce: it means that, as of the check date, wallets that hold this token could not convert it back into another asset through the contract's normal sell path. In practice, a contract with this kind of restriction can let whoever controls it decide who is able to exit a position and who isn't, regardless of what buyers intend to do with their holdings. The other findings compound this picture: the contract's source code is not verified, meaning nobody can read in plain terms what the contract actually does — the check can only observe compiled bytecode behaviour, not confirm intent. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it at will. And the top 10 wallets hold 94.4% of the supply, which means a small number of addresses could materially affect price or supply conditions through their own actions, whether by trading, transferring, or participating in governance if any exists. Several other mechanics — admin mint rights, pausable transfers, blacklist functions, upgradeability — returned no data, which means this check was not able to confirm or rule out those behaviours, not that they are absent.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics as they exist on-chain right now; it does not assess who built the token, what they've said publicly, whether a legal entity stands behind the project, or what their plans are. A technically unremarkable contract can still sit behind a team with no track record, and a contract flagged here could in some cases belong to a project in active, disclosed development. This score reflects code behaviour only, observed automatically, with no human review involved.
Given that sell transactions are currently blocked, putting funds into this token — including a small test amount — would leave that money in a position where it could not be converted back out through the contract itself. Anyone wanting to understand more about this project before making a decision might look at whether the team is publicly identified, whether there's a published audit from a named firm, how the token's distribution and vesting are structured, and whether the project has any independent commentary or history beyond its own channels. None of that substitutes for what this check measures, but it sits outside its scope entirely.
Contracts change after they are checked. Tell us where to reach you and we will say when this one does. Free for three contracts, no account.
We checked 18 points out of 100.
The other 82 are where money is usually lost: who the team is, where the tokens sit, what the documents actually say, and what the project chose not to put on its front page.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.