| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 49.8% | Holder distribution | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 40794 | Token contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
This automated check looked at AKE's contract code and current on-chain state on BSC and found no honeypot behaviour, no admin minting function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, and no address blacklist capability as of the date of this scan. In plain terms, that means the contract does not currently contain code that would let an owner freeze your tokens, print new supply out of thin air, or block specific wallets from selling. A test transfer simulation also came back sellable, with buy and sell tax both at 0%, and the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code humans can read matches what is actually deployed and running. These are all reassuring signals about the mechanics of the contract itself, but they describe what the code allows today, not what future upgrades, migrations, or external actions might introduce.
Two findings deserve closer attention. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens could, in principle, remove liquidity from the trading pair at any time, which can make it difficult or impossible to sell at a reasonable price. Separately, the top 10 holders control 49.8% of the total supply — a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could exert significant influence over price if they choose to sell in size. Neither of these is a defect in the contract code; they are structural and distributional facts about how the token is currently held and how its liquidity is arranged.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not evaluate the team behind the token, their track record, or whether they are contactable or pseudonymous. It says nothing about tokenomics design, vesting schedules, treasury allocations, or whether the project has a working product, roadmap, or legal entity behind it. It cannot assess intent: a contract with clean code can still sit behind a project that never delivers, and a messy contract can belong to a team with good intentions. None of the findings above should be read as a judgement on the people or plans behind AKE.
Before considering any transaction, it would be sensible to look up the liquidity pool address directly and check who holds the LP tokens and whether any lock exists on a third-party locker service, since "not locked" here reflects the state at scan time and can change. It's also worth reviewing the top 10 holder addresses individually to see whether they look like exchange wallets, team wallets, or unrelated individual holders, checking the project's own communications and any audits they reference, and searching independently for community discussion or news about the token before forming a view.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.
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.