| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 89.9% | Holder distribution | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1514 | Token contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x9db963…691ee2 |
| Current owner | 0x9ae944…3c63b0 |
| Holders | 1,514 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x4a04ea…8eb41f | 26.24% |
| #2 | 0x8d5309…d18fa4 | 17.00% |
| #3 | 0xb0ccd0…4d58ad | 15.75% |
| #4 | 0x925f29…3285f1 | 11.06% |
| #5 | 0x08a9a9…50acf4 | 9.33% |
This automated check on Cluster Protocol (CP) on Base scored 11 out of 18, and a few points are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes an active mint function, which means whoever controls the owner address can create new CP tokens at will — this can dilute existing holders' share of supply without warning. Top-10 wallets hold 89.9% of all tokens, a high concentration that means a small number of addresses could move large amounts of supply and materially affect the market if they choose to sell. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever provided the trading pool could withdraw it, which is a mechanism directly tied to sudden loss of the ability to sell at a reasonable price. On the more reassuring side, the contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning its code is publicly readable rather than hidden, and the simulation found the token sellable with 0% buy and sell tax, with no pausable transfers, no blacklist function, and no upgradeable proxy detected as of the date of this check — meaning none of those specific control mechanisms were found in the contract at this time.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it looks at what the contract technically allows, not who is behind it, what their intentions are, or how they've behaved in the past. It does not assess the team's identity or track record, the token's economic design or long-term incentive structure, marketing claims, roadmap credibility, or any legal or regulatory standing. No human has reviewed this project, and nothing here should be read as a judgement on whether the people running it are trustworthy.
Before putting money into any token showing these findings, it's worth looking further. Check whether the mint function has a timelock, multisig requirement, or renounced ownership — a mint that any single wallet can trigger unilaterally carries different risk than one requiring multiple approvals. Look at the top-10 holder addresses individually to see if they're exchange wallets, team vesting contracts, or unrelated individual holders. Search for the liquidity pool address and see who controls it and whether there's any public commitment or lock schedule. Finally, look for independent commentary, audits, or community discussion beyond the project's own channels, and treat any decision as one you're making with incomplete information about intent, even when the contract mechanics look clean.
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.