| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 91.7% | Holder distribution | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 7357 | Token contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x79172a…95a8a1 |
| Holders | 7,357 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x3b9db5…fdd3c4 | 20.75% |
| #2 · contract | 0xd37cb5…910837 | 20.00% |
| #3 · contract | 0xe5d66e…97645f | 15.00% |
| #4 · contract | 0xc79b88…da99c7 | 12.43% |
| #5 · contract | 0xaf3454…9fc6f2 | 11.03% |
This automated check looked at UAI's contract code and current on-chain data, and scored it 12 out of 18. In practical terms, the scan did not detect a mint function, so the contract owner does not appear to hold a built-in ability to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected either, meaning transfers cannot be halted by the owner at will, and no blacklist mechanism was found, so addresses cannot be selectively blocked from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, which means its underlying logic cannot be swapped out later for different rules. A transfer simulation showed the token is sellable with 0% buy and sell tax, and no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. The two points working against the score are that liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, and the top 10 wallets hold 92.2% of the supply, which is a high concentration that leaves the price highly sensitive to the actions of a small number of holders.
It's worth being clear about what this check has not looked at. This is a purely mechanical read of the smart contract and a snapshot of holder and liquidity data — it says nothing about who is behind UAI, whether the team is anonymous or doxxed, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether there are off-chain agreements, marketing claims, or legal structures involved, and nothing about intent. Verified source code and clean contract mechanics reduce certain technical risks, such as hidden minting or transfer restrictions, but they do not speak to whether the project's plans, promises, or economics hold up.
Before putting money in, it would be worth checking who holds those top 10 wallets — whether any are known exchange, team, or locked-contract addresses rather than individual speculators, since that changes the concentration picture significantly. It's also worth checking the liquidity pool address directly on the explorer to see who can withdraw it, since no lock was detected here. Looking at the project's own communication channels, any audit reports from third parties, the token's actual circulating versus total supply, and how long the contract and liquidity pool have existed would also add useful context. None of this replaces independent research, and this check does not constitute financial advice.
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.