| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 50.8% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1127 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x89ab4b…24ed79 |
| Holders | 1,127 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x28db77…528a4b | 12.08% |
| #2 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0xa4e17e…01cfd4 | 8.94% |
| #3 | 0xe23e02…d9628c | 5.88% |
| #4 | 0xba0a0a…38c3e5 | 4.94% |
| #5 · contract | 0xff7359…04655f | 4.00% |
This automated check gave MURAI a score of 2 out of 10 on Base, which reflects several risk indicators found in the contract and its surrounding setup, not a judgement on whether the project is trustworthy. A simulated transaction showed the token could be sold at the time of the check, and buy/sell tax was measured at 0%, so no honeypot behaviour or excessive transaction tax was detected on this occasion. However, the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, which means the check could only read raw bytecode rather than human-readable logic. As a result, key functions — such as whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, blacklist addresses, or upgrade the contract to different logic entirely — could not be confirmed either way. This is reported as "no data," not as "safe": those abilities may exist and simply weren't visible to the scanner. Separately, the top 10 wallets hold 50.8% of the supply, meaning a small number of holders could sell in a way that significantly affects the price, and the liquidity pool is not locked, so whoever controls it could withdraw it at any time.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads contract mechanics and some on-chain data points — it says nothing about who is behind the project, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there's a working product, or what the team's intentions are. A contract can look mechanically clean while the people behind it still behave in ways that harm holders, and conversely a contract with unclear code isn't automatically evidence of bad intent. No human has reviewed this token; every result above came from automated scans and simulations run on the date of the check, and contracts can be changed or behave differently afterward if they contain upgrade or admin functions.
Given the unverified source code, concentrated holdings, and unlocked liquidity, anyone looking into this token further would reasonably want to see the actual contract code verified on the block explorer before relying on assumptions about what it can and can't do. It's also worth researching who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking whether liquidity is held by a multisig or a single wallet, and looking for any public information about the team, audits, or roadmap from sources outside this check. None of this guarantees an outcome either way, but it fills in the parts of the picture that contract mechanics alone cannot show.
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.