| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — the sell tax takes the whole sale | ChainSift simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 100% | ChainSift simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract bytecode | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 59.3% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 555 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbbf0cf…309fc6 |
| Holders | 555 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xbbf0cf…309fc6 | 33.08% |
| #2 | 0x7c8c71…479661 | 5.27% |
| #3 | 0x19ffef…daa2f2 | 3.78% |
| #4 | 0x3a79da…075e39 | 2.97% |
| #5 | 0xdb0a22…c11c3f | 2.83% |
This automated check gave TLQ (Tulaq) a score of 0 out of 18, and the reason is straightforward: ChainSift's simulation found that selling the token is blocked. A sell tax of up to 100% was detected, which means a sale transaction can be submitted but the contract takes the entire proceeds rather than returning value to the seller. In practice, this is what's known as a honeypot pattern — tokens can be bought but not meaningfully sold back. Alongside this, the contract includes a blacklisting function, which would let whoever controls it block specific wallet addresses from transacting at all. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, meaning the only thing that could be examined was raw bytecode rather than human-readable logic, which limits how much can be confirmed either way. Liquidity was also found to not be locked, so whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it at any time. Top-10 wallets hold 59.3% of supply, indicating high concentration among a small number of holders.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether any team has been doxxed, what the stated roadmap or tokenomics are, or whether there is any legal entity or jurisdiction tied to it. It cannot speak to intent, and it does not verify claims made on a website or social media. A low score here reflects what the code allows, not a conclusion about the people running it.
Given that selling was found to be blocked, no amount of money put into this token — including a small or "test" amount — would currently be retrievable, since the simulation indicates the full sale value is taken by the contract. Before going any further, it would be worth independently verifying the contract address on BscScan, checking whether the source code has since been published and verified, looking at whether liquidity has been locked through a reputable locker service, and searching for any community reports describing actual sell attempts. Findings here reflect automated results as of the date of this check and may not reflect the current state of the contract if it has since been modified.
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.