| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 97.6% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 33 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xfa5293…b92e03 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 33 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xe2ce6a…5c9de0 | 76.00% |
| #2 · contract | 0xbf004b…ed4903 | 7.61% |
| #3 | 0x28ff6b…ee6150 | 3.94% |
| #4 | 0x7e8fb0…0776c5 | 3.59% |
| #5 | 0x08ac7b…aa5229 | 1.36% |
This automated check looked at the contract code behind 솜사탕 on BSC and scored it 12 out of 18. In practical terms, a few important owner powers were not detected as present on the date of this check: there is no mint function that would let the contract owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders, no pause switch that would let transfers be frozen, and no blacklist function that would let specific wallet addresses be blocked from selling. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its underlying logic cannot be swapped out later for different behaviour, and a transfer simulation found the token sellable at the time of testing, which is a basic but meaningful check against outright honeypot behaviour. The contract's source code is verified on the block explorer, so its logic is publicly readable rather than hidden. Buy and sell tax data could not be determined from the contract in this check, so those figures are simply unknown rather than confirmed at zero.
What stands out as a concentration risk is that the top 10 holders control 97.6% of the supply, across only 33 known holders in total. That is an extremely small and concentrated holder base. This does not require any special contract function to create risk: wallets holding that much supply could sell in a way that moves the price sharply, regardless of what the code does or doesn't allow.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is a mechanical read of the smart contract — it does not assess who the team behind the token is, whether they are identifiable or anonymous, how the tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the team's intentions are. A clean contract read tells you nothing about whether the people controlling those concentrated wallets plan to sell, nor whether marketing claims made elsewhere about the token are accurate. No human has reviewed this token or vouched for it; this is an automated scan only.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking at the token's liquidity pool — how much is there, and is it locked or burned, and for how long. Check whether the top wallets are linked to exchanges, team addresses, or the liquidity pool itself, since that changes what 97.6% concentration actually means. Look for an independent, recent audit, search for the team's public presence and track record, and check community channels for complaints about failed sells or sudden large transfers. None of this guarantees an outcome, but it fills in the parts a contract-only scan cannot see.
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.