| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Implementation code | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — a single wallet can replace the code | Proxy contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 87.4% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 317907 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x64fdaf…178d53 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0x4333da…028d0c — a single wallet |
| Current code | 0xcfed6c…c64e46 |
| Holders | 317,907 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x8894e0…e2d4e3 | 31.69% |
| #2 | 0xf97781…41acec | 29.46% |
| #3 | 0x5fefaf…64a838 | 14.28% |
| #4 | 0xe2fc31…a93ae1 | 2.52% |
| #5 · contract | 0x8a08d9…a7ab0e | 2.35% |
This automated check of QQQB on BSC found that selling is currently possible, with a 0% buy tax and 0% sell tax recorded at the time of the check — no honeypot behaviour was detected. However, several findings point to significant control retained by the contract owner. The admin mint function is enabled, meaning the owner can create new tokens at will, which can dilute the value of existing holdings. More significantly, the contract uses an upgradeable proxy structure, which means a single wallet has the power to replace the entire contract code — including the mechanics listed in this report. In practice, this means any protection described here, such as the absence of pausable transfers or blacklisting, could be altered or removed at a later date without requiring holder approval. Top-10 wallets currently hold 86.6% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could affect the market through large sells. Liquidity is not locked, though this is noted as common for large tokens with liquidity spread across many providers (148 in the main pool) rather than held by one entity — this reduces, but does not remove, the risk of a single party pulling liquidity.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only: it looks at code behaviour, tax settings, mint permissions, and holder distribution as recorded on-chain at the time of the check. It says nothing about the people or team behind the project, their intentions, the token's broader economic design, whether any legal or regulatory structure exists, or whether marketing claims made elsewhere match what the contract actually does. A verified source and a clean simulation result describe present code behaviour, not future conduct by whoever controls the owner wallet.
Before putting money into this or any token, it is worth looking into who controls the owner and proxy admin wallets, whether that control sits with a multi-signature arrangement or a single key, and whether there is any public record of a renouncement plan or timelock on admin functions. It's also worth researching the team's public identity and track record, reading the project's own documentation on tokenomics and supply schedule, checking independent discussion of the project outside its own channels, and reviewing the holder list directly on the block explorer to see how concentrated the top wallets are and whether they appear linked. None of these steps confirm outcomes, but they fill in context that a contract-mechanics check cannot provide.
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.