| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No — the lock on 100% ended 10 Oct 2026 | LP holders | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 5 | Token contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x761828…d9954a |
| Holders | 5 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x761828…d9954a | 80.00% |
| #2 · contract | 0x4df938…4cdf95 | 20.00% |
| #3 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0xd67f18…ea4665 | 0.00% |
| #4 | 0xd45dd9…88dc1c | 0.00% |
| #5 · contract | 0x6aa989…41c7e8 | 0.00% |
This automated check looked at ZOZ's contract code and current on-chain state on Base and scored it 12 out of 18. A simulated transfer showed the token can be bought and sold, with buy and sell tax both set to 0% at the time of the check. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear to have a built-in way to create new tokens out of thin air. No transfer-pausing function and no address blacklist function were detected, so the owner does not currently appear able to freeze trading or block specific wallets from moving their tokens. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, which means its code cannot be swapped out later for different logic without deploying an entirely new contract. The source code is verified on the block explorer, so anyone can read exactly what it does. The findings that pull the score down are concentration and liquidity: the top 10 holders control 100% of supply, and there are only 5 holders in total. Liquidity is not locked — a lock covering 100% of it ended on 10 October 2026, meaning whoever controls that liquidity could withdraw it from the pool at any time.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — the functions written into the code and the current holder and liquidity data. It says nothing about who the team behind ZOZ is, whether they are reachable or accountable, how the tokenomics are meant to play out over time, what legal entity (if any) stands behind the project, or what the team's actual intentions are. A contract can look clean by every mechanical measure checked here and still be part of a project where a handful of wallets choose to sell or pull liquidity at any point, since this check has already shown those wallets hold effectively all of the supply.
Given that holder concentration is at 100% among just 5 wallets and liquidity is unlocked, it would be reasonable to look further before treating any findings here as reassuring. That could include tracing what those top wallets have done historically, checking whether the liquidity pool address is controlled by a known team multisig or a single unverified wallet, looking for any public team identity or audit beyond automated contract scanning, and watching whether holder count and distribution change over time rather than relying on a single snapshot. This check reflects conditions detected on the date it ran and can change at any time afterward.
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.