| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | 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 | 16.2% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 99.6% burned | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1406726 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbcad0a…494c0c |
| Current owner | 0x000000…000001 |
| Holders | 1,406,726 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · SushiSwapV2 · contract | 0xfe8305…80ab1d | 4.02% |
| #2 | 0x06f672…0906db | 3.08% |
| #3 | 0x98057b…49419d | 2.00% |
| #4 | 0xf2871a…1e0b32 | 1.67% |
| #5 | 0x5a33ab…d0d935 | 1.21% |
This automated check looked at the toby contract on Base and did not detect the mechanics that typically let a token owner trap or drain holders. A transfer simulation found the token sellable, with no buy or sell tax applied. No admin mint function was found, meaning no mechanism was detected that would let the owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was found, so no mechanism was detected that would let the owner freeze transfers. No blacklist function was found, so no mechanism was detected that would let the owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out later for different behaviour. The source code is verified on the block explorer, so what the contract actually does is publicly readable rather than hidden. Liquidity is reported as 99.6% burned, which reduces (though does not eliminate) the risk of the liquidity pool being pulled out from under holders. Top-10 wallets hold 16.2% of supply, a moderate concentration figure worth keeping in mind alongside the token's roughly 1.4 million holder count.
It's worth being clear about what this score does not cover. This is an automated read of contract code and on-chain data only, not a review of the people behind the project, their track record, or their intentions. It says nothing about tokenomics design, future unlock schedules, marketing claims, roadmap credibility, or whether any legal entity stands behind the token. A contract can score well here and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals, an inactive team, or misleading promotion — none of that is something contract mechanics can reveal. The absence of a flag means that specific behaviour was not detected on the date of this check; it is not a certification that the contract is safe or that it will behave the same way indefinitely, since findings reflect a single point in time.
Before putting money in, it's worth independently verifying who controls the top holder wallets and whether any are exchange or team addresses rather than independent holders, checking whether the liquidity lock is verifiable through a third-party locker service with an unlock date, looking at the project's actual trading volume and liquidity depth rather than relying on holder count alone, and searching for any independent commentary, audits, or history tied to the team or similar contracts they've deployed before. None of this check's findings amount to investment advice, and nothing here should be read as encouragement to buy, sell, or hold.
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.