| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 6 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x6b2c9e…6401c4 |
| Current owner | 0x6b2c9e…6401c4 |
| Holders | 6 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x6b2c9e…6401c4 | 99.99% |
| #2 · contract | 0x6402c0…7633d4 | 0.01% |
| #3 | 0xc00eba…4a7766 | 0.00% |
| #4 | 0x24146e…bb99d2 | 0.00% |
| #5 | 0x83ce9b…7416e3 | 0.00% |
This automated check looked at DUCAT's contract mechanics on BSC and scored 12 out of 18. In practical terms, the simulation found the token can currently be sold, and the buy and sell taxes both read as 0%. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze all transfers. No blacklist function was detected, meaning there's no on-chain mechanism found that would let the owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out for something different later, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the actual logic is publicly readable rather than hidden. Two things pull the score down: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it at any time, and the top 10 holders control 100% of supply across just 6 holders total, which is an extremely concentrated distribution with no independent float.
None of this tells you who is behind DUCAT, what their intentions are, whether a team is doxxed, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or whether the marketing claims match reality. This check only reads what the contract code and current chain state permit — it says nothing about the people operating it or the economic design beyond raw holder percentages. An automated system produced these results from on-chain data on the date of the check; no person reviewed DUCAT specifically, and none of this constitutes an assessment of trustworthiness.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking at who the 6 holders actually are and whether any addresses are known exchange, burn, or team wallets rather than independent holders, since 100% concentration among so few addresses means price could move sharply if any one of them sells or if liquidity is pulled. Check whether the liquidity pool tokens sit in a locking contract with a visible unlock date, or whether they're sitting in an ordinary wallet. Look for any official team identity, audit reports from a named firm, social channels with real history rather than recently created accounts, and a whitepaper or documentation that matches what the contract actually does. Re-run a check like this periodically too, since contract permissions and liquidity status can change after the date shown here.
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.