| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No — only pool shares for added liquidity | Pool contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 97.8% until 31 Oct 2200, 2% burned | LP holders · PinkLock02 | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 3 | Token contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xec6b49…cdc8bc |
| Current owner | 0xca143c…350c73 — PancakeSwap V2 factory that created the pool |
| Holders | 3 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PinkLock02 · contract · locked | 0x407993…ee1bbe | 97.83% |
| #2 · Null Address · burned | 0x000000…000000 | 1.96% |
| #3 · contract | 0x0ed943…c39706 | 0.20% |
This automated check looked at the Cake-LP address for the $JET/WBNB pair on PancakeSwap, and it's worth being clear about what this address actually is: it's not the $JET token itself, but the liquidity pool contract. Its "holders" are liquidity providers holding pool shares, not people holding $JET. With that in mind, here's what the findings mean in practice. No admin minting function was detected beyond the standard mechanism that issues pool shares to anyone who adds liquidity — there's no indicator the owner can print extra pool tokens out of thin air. No transfer-pausing or blacklist functionality was detected, meaning nothing in this contract lets an owner freeze the pool or block specific addresses. The contract isn't upgradeable, so its code can't be swapped out later. Buy and sell tax both read 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the pool is sellable. Source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic is publicly readable. On liquidity: 97.8% of the pool's LP tokens are locked until a date far in the future, with the remaining 2% burned, which on the date of this check reduces the ability of whoever controls the liquidity to pull it out abruptly.
What this does not tell you is just as important. This check reads contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the $JET project, how its tokenomics are structured, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or the intentions of the people running it. A clean read on the pool contract says nothing about the $JET token contract's own mint, tax, or pause functions, which is a separate piece of code and would need its own check. Holder concentration isn't meaningful here either, since a pool naturally has very few holders (in this case, three), and that figure describes liquidity providers, not token distribution among buyers.
Before putting money in, it's worth running the same kind of check directly on the $JET token contract address, not just the pool. Look at who holds the largest share of $JET tokens outside the pool, since concentrated ownership can affect price behaviour. Check who controls the wallet that locked the liquidity and confirm the lock details independently on PinkLock rather than relying on a single summary. Look into the team's public presence, any audits of the $JET contract specifically, and community activity. None of this replaces independent research, and nothing here 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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.