| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Implementation code | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — another contract can replace the code | Proxy contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 46.7% | Holder distribution | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2391830 | Token contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xdec539…1d4d29 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0xcf5757…40a827 — another contract |
| Current code | 0xd47d14…507fa0 |
| Holders | 2,391,830 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xf3fc17…649b58 | 25.56% |
| #2 | 0xf7f468…6b6e26 | 4.57% |
| #3 · contract | 0xd6c8a4…7c17f6 | 3.25% |
| #4 | 0xf97781…41acec | 3.00% |
| #5 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 2.86% |
This automated check scanned the contract code behind ARB on Arbitrum and found a few mechanics worth understanding in plain terms. The contract allows the owner (or whoever controls the admin keys) to mint new tokens at will, which means total supply isn't fixed and new tokens could be created and distributed, diluting existing holders' share. It also uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, meaning the actual logic behind the token can be swapped out for different code entirely — in principle, this could change how the token behaves in the future, including rules around transfers, taxes, or minting, without holders needing to do anything. No transfer-pausing function or address blacklist was found in the implementation code as of the date of this check, and the simulation showed the token is sellable with 0% buy and sell tax, so no honeypot-style trading restriction was detected. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows the contract's logic to be publicly audited. On the concentration side, the top 10 holders control 46.7% of supply, which is a meaningfully large share concentrated in few wallets, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplies the trading pool could withdraw it.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads what the smart contract itself can technically do — it says nothing about who the team is, whether they intend to use the mint function, how tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether there's a legal entity behind the project, or any off-chain promises, roadmaps, or partnerships. A contract can score well on these technical checks and still carry risk from how it's run, and conversely, flagged capabilities (like mint or upgradeability) are common in large, established projects for legitimate operational reasons — their presence alone isn't a verdict on intent.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth looking into who holds admin or owner privileges on this contract (a multisig with known, reputable signers is different from a single unverified wallet), checking whether a timelock exists on upgrades or minting so changes can't happen instantly, reviewing the project's own documentation on why mint and upgrade functions exist, looking at how the top holders got their allocations (team, treasury, exchanges, or early investors), and checking liquidity pool ownership and lock status directly on a chain explorer rather than relying on summaries. This check reflects conditions observed on the date it ran and will not capture changes made afterward.
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.