| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | Launch pool, permanently | Doppler factory | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xaf2bfb…a23812 |
| Current owner | 0x660eaa…ba8d12 — Doppler Airlock contract, can’t change this token |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x498581…652b2b | 100.00% |
| #2 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 0.00% |
This automated check looked at CatGPT's contract code on Base and simulated a transfer to see what the mechanics allow, not what the people behind it intend to do. On the positive side, the scan found no mint function that would let an admin create new tokens out of thin air, no ability to pause transfers, no blacklist function to block specific wallets, and no upgradeable proxy pattern that would let the underlying code be swapped out later. The contract source code is also verified on the block explorer, meaning the code you see is the code that's actually running, and a test transfer went through without triggering honeypot-style selling restrictions. None of these were detected as of the check date; that's a statement about what was found, not a permanent guarantee about future behaviour.
The findings that stand out are the holder numbers. There are only two holders recorded for this token, and between them the top ten addresses control 100% of supply. In practice this means the entire token supply is sitting in a tiny number of wallets, which gives whoever controls those wallets the ability to move or sell a huge portion of supply at once, something that can affect price sharply if it happens. This is a concentration risk indicator, not proof of any coordinated plan, but it is the kind of pattern that matters a lot more than any single contract function when so few wallets effectively are the market.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only: functions, permissions, and on-chain holder data. It says nothing about who the team is, whether they are anonymous, what their track record looks like, how the tokenomics are supposed to work long-term, whether there is any legal entity behind the project, or what their actual intentions are. A clean contract scan and a project with no real team or purpose can coexist; this tool simply isn't built to detect that side of things.
Before putting any money in, it would be worth looking at who holds those two wallets and whether either is a known exchange, locker, or liquidity pool contract rather than a private individual, checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, searching for the team's public presence and history, and reading the project's own documentation to understand what's supposed to happen with supply over time. None of this guarantees an outcome either way, but it fills in the parts of the picture that a contract scan alone cannot.
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.