| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 70.4% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 276 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7c081c…d0c58e |
| Holders | 276 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x7c081c…d0c58e | 40.09% |
| #2 | 0x22e534…f304ab | 5.76% |
| #3 | 0xba8982…ff082a | 4.33% |
| #4 | 0xec1a19…fa51f8 | 4.20% |
| #5 | 0x041a42…afaa92 | 3.45% |
This automated check scored this token 0 out of 18, and the main reason is the most serious finding a scan like this can produce: an automated simulation found that selling is blocked at the contract level. In practice, this means that wallets that acquire this token may not be able to convert it back out through normal transactions, regardless of price movement. The contract's source code is also not verified, so its underlying logic could not be read directly — this assessment is based on observed behaviour (bytecode and simulation), not a line-by-line review of readable code. On top of that, the top 10 holders control 70.4% of the supply, meaning a small number of wallets could move or sell large amounts and materially affect the remaining holders, and the liquidity behind the token is not locked, so it could be withdrawn from the trading pool without warning. Together, these findings describe a contract where the ability to exit a position cannot be confirmed, and where concentration and liquidity controls sit outside any holder's influence.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics only — things like whether a function exists that blocks transfers, or whether liquidity sits in a locked contract. It says nothing about who is behind the project, what they intend to do with it, whether any roadmap or marketing claims are accurate, or whether any legal entity stands behind the token. A contract can pass every mechanical check and still be tied to a team with no real plans, just as a contract with concerning mechanics isn't proof of intent either way. This scan is automated and does not involve any human reviewing the project or its claims.
Given that selling is currently blocked according to this simulation, there is no transaction size that makes testing this safe — funds placed into a token that cannot be sold remain there. Rather than attempting a purchase, next steps would be to look for independent confirmation of the sell restriction (other simulators or on-chain explorers showing failed sell transactions), check whether the contract address matches any official communication from the entity the token claims association with, review the block explorer for the contract creator's history and other deployed tokens, and look at whether liquidity lock services show any record for this pair. None of these steps confirm safety outright, but they add independent context beyond what a single automated mechanics check can show.
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.