| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 93.5% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 416 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0b0f37…b38186 |
| Holders | 416 |
| 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 VRT's contract blocks selling: in a simulated transaction, tokens could be bought but not sold. This is what's commonly called a honeypot pattern, and it's the most serious finding this tool can report, which is why the score is 0 out of 18 regardless of anything else detected. Alongside this, the contract owner retains the ability to pause transfers entirely, meaning holder activity could be frozen at the owner's discretion. The top 10 holders control 93.5% of the supply, which means a small number of wallets hold the large majority of tokens and could affect the market significantly if they moved. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it. On the other side, the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, no admin minting function was detected, and no blacklist function was detected as of the date of this check — absence of these flags means they were not found in the contract code reviewed, not that they are impossible under some other mechanism.
This check only reads contract mechanics: what the code technically allows the owner or deployer to do. It does not assess who is behind this project, whether there is a working product, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether any claims made in marketing or documentation are accurate, or whether there is legal accountability behind the token. A contract can look fine mechanically while the people and plans behind it remain completely unverified by this tool, and conversely, flags here don't tell you anything about intent — only about what the code permits.
Given that selling is currently blocked, no amount put into this token could be withdrawn as things stand, including a small test purchase: if the contract prevents sales, test funds would be stuck the same as any other funds. Anyone wanting to understand this token further, rather than act on it, might look at whether the project has published any statement about the pause and sell-block functions, check the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who controls it, and look at whether the top holder wallets are known entities (exchanges, team, locked contracts) or unlabelled addresses. None of this changes what the contract currently permits.
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.