| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 3% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 3% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.6% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2315 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xfc00fc…8bcec5 |
| Current owner | 0xa1d2e7…27c2e9 |
| Holders | 2,315 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x02abda…c4af3b | 95.00% |
| #2 | 0x993a44…3ec668 | 4.09% |
| #3 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0xf138b3…9f000e | 0.30% |
| #4 · contract | 0x4ff1d4…6709a1 | 0.08% |
| #5 | 0x4e5c06…3ed01f | 0.03% |
This automated check scanned WOOF's contract code on BNB Chain and found a score of 11 out of 18. In practical terms, a transfer simulation showed the token can currently be sold, and the contract applies a tax of up to 3% on both buys and sells — meaning a portion of each trade is taken before it completes, which reduces the amount received. No admin minting function was detected, so there is no evidence the owner can create new tokens out of thin air to dilute holders. Transfers are not pausable and no blacklist function was found, which means nothing in the code suggests the owner can freeze the contract or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be silently swapped for different code later. Liquidity shows as 100% burned, meaning the tokens that back trading on the exchange have been sent to an address no one controls, which lowers (but does not remove) the risk of the pool being pulled. One notable flag is that the top 10 holders control 99.6% of the supply — a very high concentration, meaning a small number of wallets could sell large amounts at once and move the price significantly.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads contract mechanics as they exist on the date of the scan — it does not assess who is behind the project, how the team is funded, whether the tokenomics are sustainable, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached, or what the team's intentions are. A contract can look clean on every mechanical check while still being part of a project with no real activity, no roadmap, or no accountability behind it. Nothing here was reviewed by a person; this is an automated read of the code and on-chain data as they stood at the time of the check, and conditions such as ownership, taxes, or liquidity locks can change afterward.
Before putting money in, it is worth looking at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking whether contract ownership has been renounced or still sits with a wallet that could change settings, reviewing the project's social channels and history for consistency, and confirming the liquidity lock or burn independently on the explorer rather than relying on a single data point. Given the concentration among a handful of wallets, it may also help to look at recent large transfers to see whether holders have been accumulating or distributing.
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.