| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 93.6% | Holder distribution | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 260008 | Token contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
This automated check looked at the ASTER contract's code and on-chain data as they stood on the date of the scan, and scored 12 out of 18. In practical terms, a sell simulation completed successfully, meaning the contract did not block a test transaction from going through — no honeypot behaviour was detected. The contract does not appear to give the owner the ability to mint new tokens at will, pause transfers, or blacklist specific addresses, and it is not built as an upgradeable proxy, which would otherwise let someone swap in new contract logic after launch. The source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic that was reviewed by this automated tool is the same logic actually running on-chain, rather than a hidden or mismatched version. Buy and sell tax figures were not retrievable from the contract in this check, so that cost to traders remains unconfirmed rather than confirmed as zero. Separately from all of this, the top 10 wallet addresses hold 93.6% of the total supply, which is a high concentration — it means a small number of holders could move a large share of tokens in a way that affects the market, regardless of what the contract code allows or restricts.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads contract mechanics — permissions, functions, and holder distribution as recorded on-chain. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team's identity or history is verifiable, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, whether any legal entity stands behind the token, or what the actual intent of the deployers is. A verified, unrestricted contract can still sit behind a project with weak fundamentals or unclear plans, and this check has no way of detecting that.
Before considering any transaction, it would be reasonable to look into who holds those top 10 wallets and whether any are known exchange, liquidity, or team addresses, since concentration alone reads differently depending on context. It's also worth checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, looking for independent commentary or audits from sources outside the project itself, and trying the actual buy and sell tax by testing a small transaction, since that data was not available here. None of the above should be read as a recommendation to proceed either way — it is simply a description of what this particular automated check did and did not find.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.
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.