| 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 | Enabled | 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 | 80.3% | Holder distribution | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Holders | 298151 | Token contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
This automated check found that the contract for GMX includes a function allowing the owner to mint new tokens, which means the circulating supply can be increased at the owner's discretion, potentially diluting the value of existing holdings. It also found that the owner can change balances directly, a capability that in principle allows the contract owner to alter what a specific wallet holds without that holder's involvement. Neither transfer-pausing nor address-blacklisting functions were detected on the date of this check, meaning no on-chain mechanism was found that would let the owner freeze transfers network-wide or block a specific address from moving tokens. The simulation also did not detect honeypot-style behaviour: test transfers indicate tokens can be both bought and sold, with 0% buy and sell tax recorded at the time of the check. Holder concentration is high, with the top 10 addresses holding 80.3% of supply, and liquidity was not found to be locked, meaning liquidity providers retain the ability to withdraw pooled funds. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows the underlying code to be read and cross-checked, though verification itself does not indicate whether the code is favourable to holders.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. This is an automated, mechanical read of contract code and on-chain data only — it does not assess the team behind the token, their track record, tokenomics design, roadmap credibility, legal structure, jurisdiction, or intent. A contract can score well on this check and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, flagged permissions do not by themselves indicate wrongdoing — many established, actively developed protocols retain admin functions for legitimate operational reasons. No human has reviewed this specific contract or project; all findings above are generated by automated analysis.
Before acting on this information, consider looking into who controls the wallet(s) with minting and balance-adjustment rights, and whether that control sits behind a multisig or timelock — this is often disclosed in project documentation or governance forums. Check whether the top-10 holder addresses are known exchange or protocol wallets rather than individual insiders, which can be researched via the block explorer's labelled address data. Look into why liquidity is not locked and whether the project has published any statement on liquidity management. Finally, review independent audits, community discussion, and the project's own documentation to build a fuller picture beyond what contract mechanics alone can show.
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.