| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Implementation code | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — a single wallet can replace the code | Proxy contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.4% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2542 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x64fdaf…178d53 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0x4333da…028d0c — a single wallet |
| Current code | 0xcfed6c…c64e46 |
| Holders | 2,542 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x8894e0…e2d4e3 | 76.65% |
| #2 | 0x084399…434083 | 14.72% |
| #3 | 0xe2fc31…a93ae1 | 7.02% |
| #4 · contract | 0x56a783…3d82c0 | 0.25% |
| #5 | 0x98adef…8bba9d | 0.17% |
This automated check scanned the SNDKB contract on BSC and found a mix of findings that are worth translating into plain terms. The contract allows the owner to mint new tokens at will, meaning the total supply is not fixed and could be increased at any time, which can dilute the value of tokens already held. More significantly, this contract uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, which means a single wallet has the ability to swap out the entire contract logic whenever it chooses — including rewriting rules around taxes, transfers, or minting, even if those rules look harmless today. No pausable-transfer or blacklist function was detected in the current implementation, and buy/sell tax is currently set at 0%, with no honeypot behaviour found in ChainSift's sell simulation. However, because the contract is upgradeable, any of these conditions could be changed in a future update without needing a new contract deployment. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, and the top 10 wallets hold 99.3% of total supply, which is a very high concentration — large sales from a small number of wallets could have an outsized effect on anyone else holding the token.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. This is an automated review of contract mechanics only — it reads what the code allows, not what the people behind it intend to do with that power. It does not assess who the team is, whether they are identifiable or anonymous, how the tokenomics are structured beyond what's on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or whether marketing claims match reality. A score of 9 out of 18 reflects the presence of several capabilities that concentrate control with the contract owner and liquidity holders, not a judgement on the project's legitimacy or future conduct.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth looking into who controls the owner wallet and whether that address is a multisig or a single key, checking whether there's any public communication about plans to renounce ownership or lock liquidity, reviewing the identities and track record of the team if disclosed anywhere, and looking at how concentrated holder activity has been over time — for instance, whether top wallets have been selling. Reading the project's own documentation and independently verifying any claims made about supply caps or liquidity commitments would also be reasonable next steps, since none of that is captured by reading the contract alone.
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.