| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 92.4% | Holder distribution | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1996 | Token contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x9db963…691ee2 |
| Current owner | 0x9ae944…3c63b0 |
| Holders | 1,996 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x4a04ea…8eb41f | 25.93% |
| #2 · contract | 0x8d5309…d18fa4 | 17.00% |
| #3 · contract | 0xb0ccd0…4d58ad | 15.75% |
| #4 | 0xc57165…1f7ff4 | 12.67% |
| #5 · contract | 0x08a9a9…50acf4 | 9.33% |
This automated check scanned the CP (Cluster Protocol) contract on Base and scored it 10 out of 18 on the mechanics it looks for. A few things stand out. The contract's owner can mint new tokens at will, which means the total supply is not fixed and could be increased at any time, diluting existing holders' share of the token. The top 10 wallets hold 91.8% of the supply, so a small number of addresses could move or sell large amounts and affect the market significantly, regardless of what the contract code itself allows. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, making it harder or impossible to sell the token at a fair price. On the more reassuring side, no buy or sell tax was detected, the token simulated as sellable, and the contract does not appear to include a transfer pause switch, an address blacklist function, or an upgradeable proxy pattern — none of these were present as of the date of this check. The contract source code is also verified on the block explorer, meaning the code backing these findings is publicly readable.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads the contract's code and on-chain data — it has no way of knowing who is behind the project, what their intentions are, how the token's economics are supposed to work long-term, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists around it. A contract can look clean on paper while still being tied to a team or a plan that carries risk, and conversely, unusual code doesn't always mean bad intent. This process is fully automated; no person has reviewed this token or made a judgement call about it.
Before putting any money in, it would be sensible to look into who is behind the project and whether they're identifiable or anonymous, to read whatever documentation or whitepaper exists and see if the mint function and holder concentration are explained, and to check the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who controls it and how much is there. It's also worth searching for independent discussion of the project outside of its own channels, and considering that high holder concentration combined with unlocked liquidity and an active mint function are all factors that increase the number of ways a small group could affect the token's availability or value.
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.