| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 1% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 1% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 92% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 99.9% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1449 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x4c83ea…0bc032 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 1,449 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0xd5dd05…c49c9a | 75.19% |
| #2 | 0x45ce59…7bc060 | 5.13% |
| #3 | 0xe731ed…0928d2 | 3.19% |
| #4 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 1.77% |
| #5 · contract | 0x7bf196…fb2d27 | 1.76% |
This automated check scored SHARE 11 out of 18. A transfer simulation found the token sellable at the time of testing, and no honeypot behaviour was detected — meaning the contract did not block a sale during the check. Buy and sell tax were each found at 1%, a transfer fee the contract applies on trades. No admin mint function was detected, which means nothing in the contract as reviewed allows new tokens to be created and the existing supply inflated. No pause function and no blacklist function were detected, so nothing in the contract as reviewed would let an owner freeze transfers generally or block specific wallets from moving tokens. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out later for different behaviour. Liquidity is reported as 99.9% burned, which indicates the pooled trading liquidity is not sitting in a wallet that could withdraw it. Source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code is readable rather than hidden, though this check did not involve a line-by-line human audit of that code. Set against this, the top 10 holders control 92% of supply, which is a high concentration — large holders selling at the same time could move the price sharply regardless of what the contract mechanics allow.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads contract mechanics as they existed at the time of the scan: tax settings, mint/pause/blacklist functions, proxy status, liquidity lock status, and holder distribution pulled from on-chain data. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how tokens were allocated before launch, what the stated use case or roadmap is, or whether any marketing claims match reality. It cannot detect off-chain arrangements, side contracts, or intentions. No human reviewed this token; the result is generated automatically and reflects conditions on the date of the check only, not a prediction of future behaviour.
Before putting money into any token, it's worth independently verifying the contract address against the project's own official channels, checking whether the liquidity lock or burn can be confirmed directly on-chain rather than taken on trust, looking at how the top holders acquired their tokens and whether any are the deployer or team wallets, reviewing the project's public documentation and any available audit reports from named firms, and checking the trading history and liquidity depth on a block explorer or DEX analytics tool before transacting.
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.