| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No data | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 68.9% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 80 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe03e3f…bab495 |
| Holders | 80 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x498581…652b2b | 36.85% |
| #2 | 0x611a10…deb12c | 4.96% |
| #3 | 0xac3b4d…d6a92f | 3.96% |
| #4 · contract | 0xdb5858…0976ea | 3.74% |
| #5 | 0x7f08f9…7ed7d1 | 3.74% |
This automated check gave NOMAD a score of 2 out of 6, and a few things are worth translating into plain terms. The contract functions that would reveal whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, blacklist addresses, or upgrade the contract logic were not reported by the data source, so those risks were not scored either way — this is different from confirming they're absent. What was confirmed: a simulated sell went through, and buy/sell taxes both show as 0%, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. Separately, the top 10 wallets hold 68.9% of the total supply between them, which is a high concentration — a small number of holders could move a large share of supply at once, which can affect price independently of anything to do with contract code. On top of that, liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool can withdraw it at any time, which would make the token difficult or impossible to sell at a fair price even though the contract itself allows selling right now.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics and on-chain data only — it says nothing about who the team behind NOMAD is, whether they have a track record, what the token's actual purpose or tokenomics are, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what their intentions are going forward. A low concentration of red flags in contract code does not mean the people involved are trustworthy, and conversely, missing data fields (like the ones marked "no data" above) aren't a clean bill of health — they're simply gaps this check could not fill.
Given the unlocked liquidity and the unreported contract functions, it would be reasonable to look at the project's own communications about liquidity lock plans or timelines, check the block explorer directly for the contract's verified source code (it shows as unverified here, which limits what can be independently confirmed), and look at how the top holder wallets have behaved historically — whether they're exchange or team wallets, and whether they've been accumulating or distributing. None of this replaces independent research into the people and plans behind the token, since that sits entirely outside what an on-chain mechanics check can tell you.
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 6 points out of 100.
The other 94 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.