| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.9% | Holder distribution | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 92 | Token contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe3bde2…c5ed92 |
| Current owner | 0x27b7b7…50b5b0 |
| Holders | 92 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x3be6c6…516363 | 48.92% |
| #2 · contract | 0x2212dd…3fad94 | 47.95% |
| #3 | 0x041e9e…65b6b7 | 0.89% |
| #4 · contract | 0x09fc9b…7969d3 | 0.87% |
| #5 | 0x9b7a56…cc7455 | 0.57% |
This automated check of the DGAI contract on Arbitrum found four notable items, and it's worth understanding what each one actually permits in practice. The mint function being enabled means the contract owner can create new tokens at will, which can dilute the value of tokens already held by others at any time. Top-10 wallets holding 100% of supply means a very small number of addresses control the entire circulating token base, so coordinated selling by any of them could move the price sharply, and the "87 holders" figure should be read in that light. Liquidity not being locked means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, which would make the token difficult or impossible to sell on that pool. On the positive side, source code verification being present means the contract's logic is publicly readable and was not obscured at the time of this check, and no sell tax, buy tax, pausable transfers, or blacklist function were detected, meaning this automated scan did not find evidence of those specific honeypot-style mechanisms as of the check date.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This is a read of the contract's mechanical code only — it checks what the code technically allows, not what the team intends to do with it. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether they have a track record, how the token's supply and incentives are structured long-term, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or whether marketing claims match reality. A contract can pass every mechanical check and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or undisclosed plans, and conversely risky-looking code is not proof of bad intent.
Before putting money into DGAI, it would be reasonable to look at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, check whether the liquidity pool tokens are held by an identifiable wallet or contract, look for any public statements from the team about mint authority and future supply plans, and search for independent community discussion or audits outside of this automated report. Given the combination of active mint rights, unlocked liquidity, and full supply concentration in ten wallets, these are the kinds of structural conditions that typically warrant closer manual research before any decision is made.
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.