| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | 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 | 69.7% | Holder distribution | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 114406 | Token contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x4b28f9…2d8282 |
| Current owner | 0xe22032…f62567 |
| Holders | 114,406 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x849736…18583f | 35.15% |
| #2 · contract | 0xf5aca5…fe8339 | 16.17% |
| #3 · UNCX Token Vesting · contract · locked | 0xa82685…215e33 | 3.55% |
| #4 · contract | 0x19c3c7…2cbe5d | 3.01% |
| #5 · contract | 0x8d2de8…c79627 | 2.88% |
This automated check on AIXCB (aixCB by Virtuals) on Base returned a score of 14 out of 18, based on contract mechanics as they existed on the date of the check. A few things stand out when translated into plain terms. The contract's source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the logic can be read and matched against what's deployed, rather than remaining hidden. No admin mint function was detected, which means the contract owner does not appear to have a built-in way to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No transfer-pausing function and no address blacklist capability were detected either, so the owner does not appear to retain the ability to freeze the contract or block specific wallets from moving tokens. Buy and sell tax are both set at 0%, and a transfer simulation indicates the token is currently sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of the check. On the other hand, the top 10 holders control 69.6% of supply, which is a significant concentration — a small number of wallets moving tokens could materially affect price. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool retains the ability to withdraw it at any time, which would affect the ability to buy or sell.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract code and on-chain data only. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a history of delivering on claims, how tokens were initially allocated or vested, whether there are off-chain agreements, or whether marketing claims match reality. A verified, non-malicious-looking contract can still sit on top of a project with poor incentive design, undisclosed insider holdings, or no real product behind it. None of that is assessed here.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth looking at who holds those top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking whether the liquidity pool address and its lock status (or lack of one) can be independently verified on a block explorer, researching the team's public identity and track record, reading whatever documentation or whitepaper exists for the actual utility being described, and checking community channels for independent discussion rather than only official ones. None of this guarantees an outcome one way or another — it simply gives a fuller picture than contract mechanics alone can provide.
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.