| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 57.9% | Holder distribution | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1117530 | Token contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbebe53…e32712 |
| Holders | 1,117,530 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x4cfb67…8e4a11 | 16.31% |
| #2 | 0x6ebe91…53b570 | 15.06% |
| #3 | 0x841ed6…f13a34 | 6.91% |
| #4 | 0x77302b…092b87 | 4.71% |
| #5 | 0x35d5fb…b9529d | 3.59% |
This automated check looked at ZORA's contract code on Base and ran a set of mechanical tests, not a judgement about the project itself. A test transfer went through and sold successfully, with no buy or sell tax detected, which means nothing in the code currently blocks a holder from moving or selling their tokens. No admin mint function was found, so the contract owner does not appear to hold a method for creating new tokens out of thin air and diluting holders. No pause function or address blacklist was detected either, meaning that, on the date of this check, there is no visible mechanism allowing the owner to freeze transfers generally or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable, so its current logic cannot be swapped out later by whoever controls it. The source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated reading in the first place and lets anyone inspect the logic directly.
Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than red flags with a fixed meaning. Top-10 wallets hold 57.9% of supply, which is a high concentration; large holders selling in a short window can move the price sharply regardless of anything in the contract itself. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool retains the ability to withdraw it, which could sharply reduce the ability to sell at a reasonable price if it happened. Neither point proves an intention to act this way, only that the contract or pool configuration currently permits it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — buy/sell simulation, mint and pause functions, blacklist logic, upgradeability, source verification, and holder/liquidity data pulled from the chain. It says nothing about the team behind the project, their identity or track record, the token's broader economic design, roadmap, marketing claims, or any legal or regulatory status. A high score here reflects an absence of detected technical restrictions on trading, not a statement that the project is trustworthy or that the token will hold value.
Before considering any transaction, it would be reasonable to look at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, check the liquidity pool directly to see who controls it and whether a lock exists elsewhere, review the project's own documentation and any audits from named third parties, and search for independent commentary on the team and its history. None of this replaces independent judgement, and nothing in this check should be read as advice to buy, sell, or hold.
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.