| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 46.4% | Holder distribution | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Holders | 1584 | Token contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
This automated check looked at ENA's contract code and current on-chain data on Arbitrum, and returned a score of 16 out of 18. In practical terms, the findings indicate that as of the check date, the contract does not contain an admin mint function, meaning the owner cannot detected to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No transfer-pausing mechanism was detected, so the owner appears unable to freeze trading at will, and no address blacklist function was found, meaning there is no built-in code path for the owner to block specific wallets from selling. The contract is also not upgradeable through a proxy, which means the underlying rules cannot be swapped out later without deploying an entirely new contract. Buy and sell tax are both recorded at 0%, and a transfer simulation confirmed the token is currently sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected. Two points did stand out: the top 10 holders control 46.4% of supply, which is a fairly high concentration that could allow large holders to move the market if they sell, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, though this alone does not indicate intent to do so.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. This is a purely mechanical, automated read of the contract's code and on-chain state — it says nothing about who is behind the project, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there are off-chain agreements, or the team's plans and intentions. Source verification confirms that the published code matches what's deployed, but it does not vouch for the people running it or the broader business behind the token.
Before putting any money in, it's worth independently checking who holds the top wallets and whether any belong to exchanges or known project treasuries, since context changes what concentration means. It's also worth checking directly with the liquidity provider or project documentation whether liquidity is locked elsewhere or scheduled to be, and reviewing the project's own disclosures on token allocation, vesting schedules and team identity through official channels rather than relying on this check alone.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.