| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 1% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 1% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 97.7% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 24756 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7dad35…8ddda0 |
| Current owner | 0x000000…000001 |
| Holders | 24,756 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xec2fe6…9f0c16 | 32.67% |
| #2 | 0x06562c…4e8c6b | 24.75% |
| #3 | 0x2f88fb…9ec9ea | 18.89% |
| #4 | 0x7dad35…8ddda0 | 10.79% |
| #5 · contract | 0x1453c7…3472f2 | 6.86% |
This automated check of PATIENCE (Base chain) scored 11 out of 18 on the date it was run, and a few things are worth translating into plain terms. A transfer tax of up to 1% was detected on both buying and selling, meaning a small percentage of each trade is taken by the contract rather than reaching the intended wallet — this was confirmed directly from the contract code, not estimated. No admin mint function was detected, which means that on the date of the check, nothing in the code suggested the contract owner could create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. Transfers were not found to be pausable and no blacklist function was present, so the owner does not currently appear able to freeze the contract or block specific wallets from trading. A test transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of the check. However, top-10 wallets were found to hold 97.7% of the total supply — an extremely high concentration — and liquidity was found not to be locked, meaning whoever controls that liquidity pool could withdraw it at any time, which can sharply affect the ability to sell at a reasonable price even though the token itself isn't a honeypot.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics only — it looks at code and on-chain data, not at the people behind the project. It says nothing about who the team is, whether they are anonymous, what their track record looks like, how the tokenomics are structured long-term, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what their intentions are. A contract can look technically clean while still being part of a plan that relies on concentrated holdings or unlocked liquidity to disadvantage later buyers. No human has reviewed this token; the result is generated entirely by automated analysis.
Given the findings here, there are concrete things worth looking into before deciding anything. Check whether the liquidity pool address is publicly known and look at what proportion of liquidity it represents, since unlocked liquidity sitting with a small number of wallets is a materially different risk than unlocked liquidity spread widely. Look up the top-10 holder addresses on the block explorer to see whether they are exchange wallets, known contracts, or unlabelled individual wallets, since 97.7% concentration in a few unlabelled wallets carries different implications than concentration in an exchange custody address. Search for any public information about the team, social channels, and project history outside of this contract check, and treat the absence of a locked liquidity pool as a standing condition, not a one-time flag, since it can change at any time without a new transaction being flagged here.
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.