| 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 | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 51.7% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 743 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe5ebbd…a3c050 |
| Holders | 743 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0x96804f…5b3600 | 17.84% |
| #2 | 0xba0a0a…38c3e5 | 5.00% |
| #3 · contract | 0xbb578e…acca6f | 4.45% |
| #4 | 0x714661…3fbce9 | 4.31% |
| #5 | 0xd6579f…63c519 | 4.12% |
This automated check scored Spicenet 2 out of 10 on Base, and the findings point to a contract that is difficult to assess properly rather than one with a single obvious red flag. A simulated transaction showed the token could be sold at the time of testing, with 0% buy and sell tax, so no honeypot behaviour was detected on that pass. However, the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, meaning the check could only examine raw bytecode. This is why functions like admin minting, transfer pausing, address blacklisting, and upgradeable proxy logic are all marked "no data" — it was not possible to automatically confirm whether the owner holds these powers, not that they are absent. Separately, the top 10 wallets hold 51.7% of the supply, which is a concentration level that gives a small number of holders outsized influence over price if they choose to sell, and the liquidity behind the token is not locked, meaning it could be withdrawn from the trading pool without advance notice.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate who is behind the project, whether the team is identifiable or has a track record, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, whether there is any legal structure or jurisdiction behind the token, or what the stated intentions of the creators are. A low score here reflects unverified or unassessable contract code and concentrated, unlocked liquidity; it is not a judgement on the people or plans behind Spicenet, and a higher score would not have been a judgement either.
Before putting any money in, it would be worth looking at whether the project has published its own source code anywhere and whether that matches what is deployed on-chain, since unverified bytecode means important behaviours simply couldn't be checked. It's also worth looking up the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who controls it and whether it could be pulled, checking whether the top holder wallets look like exchange or team addresses versus unrelated individual wallets, and searching for any independent commentary, audits, or community discussion about the project. Since this is an automated check reading contract data at a single point in time, none of these findings are permanent guarantees — conditions like liquidity locks, holder concentration, and verification status can all change, so re-checking before acting on older information is reasonable.
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.