| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 93% | Holder distribution | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Holders | 1696 | Token contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbd2a7d…054258 |
| Holders | 1,696 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xfd92f4…2a7eda | 13.66% |
| #2 | 0xbaed38…e9439f | 13.41% |
| #3 | 0x3304e2…7b566a | 13.14% |
| #4 | 0x1985ea…b25c87 | 12.71% |
| #5 | 0x0d0707…b492fe | 12.66% |
This automated check gave AWP a score of 0 out of 10 on Base, and the findings point to several practical concerns. A simulated transaction showed the token can currently be sold, and buy/sell tax is reported at 0%, so no honeypot behaviour or excessive trading tax was detected on the date of this check. However, the contract's source code is not verified, meaning the data source could only read raw bytecode rather than human-readable code — this makes it impossible to confirm what functions the contract actually contains, including whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, blacklist addresses, or upgrade the contract logic entirely. Because of this, those specific risk indicators are marked as "no data" rather than cleared. In addition, the top 10 wallet addresses hold 93% of the total supply, which is a high concentration — this means a small number of holders could sell large amounts at once, and liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to remove it, potentially affecting the ability of others to sell.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who the team behind AWP is, whether they have a track record, how tokens are distributed or vested among insiders, what the project's stated purpose or roadmap is, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists around it. No human has reviewed this contract or the project behind it, and nothing here speaks to intent.
Given the unverified source code, concentrated holdings, and unlocked liquidity, further manual research would focus on a few concrete things: looking up the contract on the Base block explorer to see if the team has published or plans to publish verified source code, checking whether the top holder wallets are known exchange or team addresses versus unrelated individual wallets, searching for any liquidity lock proof (such as a lock contract address or timestamped lock transaction), and looking for independent discussion of the project outside of its own channels. None of these steps can confirm outcomes, but they can help fill in the gaps this contract-level check cannot reach.
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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.