| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 81.4% | Holder distribution | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 270368 | Token contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x64fdaf…178d53 |
| Holders | 270,368 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x8894e0…e2d4e3 | 51.71% |
| #2 | 0x5fefaf…64a838 | 14.38% |
| #3 · UniswapV3 | 0xfc4e77…cc590e | 3.43% |
| #4 | 0x8a08d9…a7ab0e | 2.57% |
| #5 · PancakeV3 | 0xe531fc…cdb693 | 2.16% |
This automated check found QQQB to be an upgradeable proxy contract, meaning whoever controls the admin keys can replace the underlying logic of the token at a later date — potentially changing how transfers, fees, or other mechanics work, even if the current code looks benign. At the time of this check, no minting function, transfer pause, or address blacklist was detected in the contract, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable with 0% buy and sell tax. Top-10 wallets were found to hold 81.4% of the supply, which is a concentration level that means a small number of holders could move a large portion of tokens at once, affecting price. Liquidity was also found to not be locked, so whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it, which would make the token difficult or impossible to sell at a fair price. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated read of its code, but verification alone says nothing about whether the code is well-designed or safe to rely on.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This check only reads contract mechanics: what functions exist, what a simulated transaction did, and what's publicly visible on-chain. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the stated intentions of the developers are. A verified, tax-free, non-pausable contract can still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or unclear purpose — this check simply doesn't measure that dimension at all.
Before putting money into QQQB, it would be worth looking into who controls the upgradeable proxy's admin key and whether that control sits with a multisig, a timelock, or a single wallet — this materially changes how much unilateral power exists over the contract. It's also worth checking the liquidity pool directly on-chain to see who owns the LP tokens and whether they're locked anywhere outside this check's scope, since this check found no lock. Given the holder concentration, looking at the top wallets' transaction history for signs of coordinated selling could also be informative. Finally, checking for any independent audit reports, the team's public identity or history, and community discussion around the project would fill in the gaps this contract-level check cannot address. None of the findings above should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid the token.
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.