| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 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 | 83.2% | Holder distribution | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2236 | Token contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb3d5d7…258158 |
| Holders | 2,236 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x4a31b8…15c0d2 | 20.15% |
| #2 | 0xb38e8c…82891d | 10.00% |
| #3 | 0x0d0707…b492fe | 10.00% |
| #4 | 0x4e28b8…43c424 | 9.56% |
| #5 | 0xece731…6d922a | 7.30% |
This automated check scored IOCDG 0 out of 18, and the main reason is the most serious one this tool can flag: an automated simulation found that selling is blocked by the contract. In practice, this means that whatever the buy price looks like, wallets that hold this token were not able to sell it back in the simulation performed on the date of this check. That single finding is enough to zero the score regardless of anything else detected, because it points to the contract potentially preventing holders from exiting a position at all. On top of that, the contract's source code is not verified, meaning no one can read the actual logic behind these behaviours — the check is working from compiled bytecode only, which is less transparent. The top 10 holders also control 83.2% of the total supply, a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could influence price sharply if they were able to move tokens. Liquidity is not locked either, which means whoever supplied the trading pool is free to withdraw it at any time, with no contractual commitment to leave it in place.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It only reads contract mechanics — it has no way of knowing who the team behind Ionic Digital is, what their stated plans are, how tokenomics are supposed to work long-term, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what their intentions are. A token can score badly here for purely technical reasons, and a passing score on other tokens never confirms good intent either. This is a mechanical read of the code and on-chain data, not a judgement on the people or the project.
Given that selling was blocked in simulation, this is not a case where a small test transaction would clarify anything — if a contract prevents selling, funds placed into it stay there regardless of the amount. Rather than testing with real funds, next steps would involve independently verifying the contract source on a block explorer once or if it becomes available, checking whether the project team has published any audit from a recognised third party, looking at the liquidity pool directly to see who controls it and whether it is locked elsewhere, and researching the team and project history through independent channels rather than through the project's own materials alone.
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.