| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 0 | Token contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
This automated check on SI (Super Iguana) returned a score of 0 out of 4, largely because the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer and its functions could not be read by the data source. In practice, this means the check could not inspect the actual rules governing the token — whether the owner can mint new tokens at will, pause transfers, blacklist specific wallets from trading, or swap in new logic through an upgradeable proxy. None of these were confirmed present, but none were confirmed absent either; they are simply unknown on the date of this check, because the bytecode was not accompanied by readable source. A simulated buy-and-sell test did complete successfully, with the token found sellable and both buy and sell tax at 0% at the time of the test, and no honeypot behaviour was detected in that simulation. However, with zero holders reported, there is effectively no trading history or distribution to assess, which limits how much weight that simulation can carry.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not evaluate the team behind the project, how tokens are allocated or scheduled to unlock, whether there is a liquidity lock, any legal structure, or the intent of whoever deployed the contract. A token can pass every mechanical check and still carry significant risk from concentrated ownership, an anonymous or inexperienced team, or tokenomics designed to benefit early holders at the expense of later buyers. Nothing here speaks to those dimensions, and nothing here should be read as a signal of legitimacy or safety.
Given the unverified source and the missing function data, the next concrete step is to look for the contract's source code directly on the relevant Base block explorer and see whether the project has published it elsewhere, since unverified bytecode makes independent confirmation of mint, pause, blacklist, or proxy functions very difficult. It is also worth checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, looking at the actual holder list and distribution once there is trading activity, researching who is behind the project and whether they are identifiable, and searching for any independent audit. With zero holders currently recorded, it may also be worth checking again later, since early-stage figures can shift quickly. None of this constitutes investment advice, and nothing in this check predicts how the token will perform.
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 4 points out of 100.
The other 96 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.