| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.9% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1541 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x396f8a…bfeddc |
| Current owner | 0x396f8a…bfeddc |
| Holders | 1,541 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x396f8a…bfeddc | 99.41% |
| #2 · contract | 0x0ed943…c39706 | 0.10% |
| #3 | 0xf356a3…c3e758 | 0.06% |
| #4 | 0xc5b289…ed3a19 | 0.06% |
| #5 | 0xdb8c91…8e5720 | 0.05% |
This automated check on KAITO (Kaito Block, BSC) scored 11 out of 18, and a few findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes a blacklist function, which means whoever controls the contract has the technical ability to block specific wallet addresses from transacting with the token, including potentially the wallet you buy with. No admin mint function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders, and no pause function was detected either, meaning transfers can't be globally frozen by the contract owner as of the date of this check. A transfer simulation found the token sellable at the time of testing, and buy tax reads as 0%, though sell tax data was unavailable, so the actual cost of exiting a position is unconfirmed. Two findings stand out as higher-risk: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it at any time, and the top 10 wallets hold 99.9% of the entire supply, which is an extremely high concentration — a small number of holders could move the market significantly if they chose to sell.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it has not been reviewed by a person, and it says nothing about the team behind the project, who actually holds those top wallets, whether the stated tokenomics match reality, whether there's any legal entity behind the token, or what the people running it intend to do. A verified source and a clean mint/pause result describe what the code currently allows; they don't describe intent, and intent is not something a contract scan can measure.
Given the liquidity and concentration findings here, next steps are about gathering more information rather than acting on this check alone. You could look at the actual addresses behind those top-10 holdings to see if they're linked to a team, exchange, or locked contract rather than individual sellers. You could check whether any liquidity lock exists outside what this scan found, for example via a locker service, and for how long. It's also worth searching for the project's own communication — website, socials, any audit beyond this automated one — and cross-checking claims against what's verifiable on-chain. None of this guarantees an outcome either way; it simply gives you more to weigh before deciding anything.
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.