| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.6% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 248 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xfd8411…1c81b5 |
| Holders | 248 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xfd8411…1c81b5 | 98.75% |
| #2 | 0x5d3156…c751d6 | 0.18% |
| #3 | 0x655c35…c9abef | 0.15% |
| #4 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0xfec3de…87c43e | 0.15% |
| #5 | 0x37973d…ae3adf | 0.08% |
This automated check gave LILPEPE a score of 0 out of 10 on Base, and the findings below explain why. A simulated transaction found the token sellable, with a 0% buy tax and 0% sell tax detected at the time of the check — so no honeypot behaviour or trading-tax trap was identified on that date. However, the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, meaning only raw bytecode is available. This matters because the automated scanner could not read or confirm the presence or absence of functions like admin minting, pausable transfers, blacklisting, or an upgradeable proxy — these are reported as "no data," not as "absent." In practice, unverified source means nobody outside the deployer can easily confirm what the contract is actually capable of doing to holders, including whether the owner retains the ability to mint new tokens, freeze wallets, or alter how the token behaves after launch. Separately, the top 10 holders control 99.6% of the supply, which is an extreme concentration — a small number of wallets could move a large share of the circulating supply at once. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it at any time, which can leave remaining holders unable to sell at a meaningful price even if the contract itself permits selling.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — token-level code behaviour, holder distribution, and liquidity status as they appeared on the date of the scan. It says nothing about the team behind the project, their identity or track record, the token's broader economic design, marketing claims, legal structure, jurisdiction, or intent. A token can show no flagged contract behaviour and still carry significant risk from these unassessed areas, and conversely, incomplete data (as with the "no data" items here) does not mean a function is absent — it means it wasn't readable from verified source.
Before considering any transaction, you may want to look up the contract directly on the Base block explorer and check whether the team has published or verified the source code since this scan, review the liquidity pool and lock status yourself on a tool that tracks LP tokens, examine the holder list for wallet concentration and any obvious connections between top holders, and search for any independent audits, team disclosures, or community discussion of this specific contract address. None of this check's findings should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid the token.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.