| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 87.8% | Holder distribution | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 25933 | Token contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x277e58…782483 |
| Current owner | 0x410104…de12b6 |
| Holders | 25,933 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 30.53% |
| #2 | 0xf97781…41acec | 25.75% |
| #3 | 0x841ed6…f13a34 | 19.45% |
| #4 | 0x98adef…8bba9d | 3.42% |
| #5 | 0x498208…6e89cb | 2.65% |
This automated check looked at the XPL contract on BSC and scored it 13 out of 18. In practical terms, the simulation found the token can be sold (no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check), and buy/sell tax is set to 0%, meaning the contract does not currently take a cut of trades. No admin mint function was found, so the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function and no blacklist function were detected either, which means the contract does not currently give the owner a built-in way to freeze transfers or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out later without deploying a new contract entirely. Two things stand out as less favourable: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls that liquidity pool could withdraw it, and the top 10 wallets hold 87.8% of the total supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could move the market significantly if they chose to sell. The contract source is verified, so the code behind these findings is publicly readable rather than hidden.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics as deployed on-chain — it does not assess who the team behind Plasma is, whether their stated plans match the tokenomics, whether there's a legal entity standing behind the project, or what their intent is. A contract can look clean mechanically while still being part of a project with weak fundamentals, an anonymous team, or misleading marketing. None of that is visible from bytecode alone, and this score should not be read as a judgement on the project as a whole.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who holds those top-10 wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, since that changes what concentration actually means here. It's also worth checking directly on the liquidity pool itself — which platform it sits on and whether a lock exists that this check didn't pick up, or whether one gets added later. Beyond the contract, look for information on the team's identity, any audit reports from named firms, the project's communications and roadmap, and community discussion of the token's history. These checks sit alongside, not instead of, that wider research.
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.