| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 71.2% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 166 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x399fed…7dbc01 |
| Holders | 166 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x0c34fa…a7ab20 | 28.49% |
| #2 | 0x631fc1…9aa161 | 10.00% |
| #3 | 0x061683…0ef13d | 6.61% |
| #4 | 0x399fed…7dbc01 | 4.98% |
| #5 | 0x7d2c79…cbb1d0 | 4.20% |
This automated check on DPAY (Diameter Pay, BSC) returned a score of 13 out of 18, based on the contract mechanics observed on the date of the scan. A test transfer simulation found the token sellable, and no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of the check. No minting function was found, meaning the contract does not currently appear to let the owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function and no address blacklist were detected, so nothing in the code currently indicates the owner can freeze transfers or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, which means its logic is not currently set up to be swapped out after deployment. On the other side, two points stand out: liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, which would affect the ability to sell or the price received when selling; and the top 10 holders control 71.2% of supply, a concentration level where coordinated or individual large sales could move the price significantly. Sell tax data was not available, so any fee applied when selling could not be confirmed one way or the other.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it does not know who the team behind Diameter Pay is, whether they have a track record, what the token's actual use case or supply schedule is meant to be, or whether any marketing claims match reality. It also doesn't assess legal structure, regulatory status, or intent. A contract can score well on mechanics while still being part of a project with weak fundamentals or misleading claims, and conversely a lower-scoring contract isn't automatically evidence of bad intent.
Before putting money in, it would be sensible to look at who holds the liquidity pool tokens and whether that liquidity is genuinely locked or just sitting in a wallet; to check the sell tax directly by reviewing the contract's current fee settings rather than assuming it's zero; to look at the distribution of the top wallets to see if they're exchange or team addresses rather than independent holders; and to research the team, any audits, and the project's public communication and history outside of this contract check.
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.