| 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 | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 0 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7cc0ce…b288bc |
This automated check scored VRAX 0 out of 4 on BSC, and the findings point to gaps in what could be verified rather than a clean result. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, which means the publicly readable code behind the token could not be checked line by line — only the compiled bytecode is visible. Because of this, several standard checks (whether the owner can mint new tokens at will, freeze transfers, blacklist specific wallets, or upgrade the contract logic after launch) returned no data, not a "no." That distinction matters: unverified means unknown, not clear. Separately, the automated simulation found the token sellable on the date of the check, with 0% buy and sell tax reported by the contract. Liquidity — the pool of funds that lets people trade the token on a decentralised exchange — was found not locked, meaning whoever controls it could, in principle, withdraw it and leave buyers unable to trade at a fair price. Holder count is reported as 0, which may reflect indexing lag rather than an actual absence of holders, but it's another gap worth noting.
It's worth being clear about what this check is and isn't. It reads contract mechanics only: what the code allows an owner or admin to technically do to holders' funds or trading ability. It does not assess who is behind the project, how tokens are distributed among insiders versus the public, whether there's a working product or roadmap, marketing claims, or legal structure. A contract can show no dangerous functions and still be tied to a team with no accountability, and conversely some centralised-looking contracts are run by legitimate, cautious teams. This check cannot tell the difference, and it involves no human review — it's fully automated pattern-matching against the contract's bytecode and on-chain data.
Given the unverified source and unlocked liquidity, a prudent next step would be to look for the verified contract source directly on BscScan yourself, check the liquidity pool and lock status through a tool like a BSC lock-checker, and look at the holder distribution to see how concentrated ownership is. It's also worth searching for the team's identity, any audit reports from recognised firms, and independent community discussion outside of the project's own channels. None of this check's findings should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid VRAX — they describe what was and wasn't detectable in the contract on the date of the check, nothing more.
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 4 points out of 100.
The other 96 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.