| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.3% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 168 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x378f2f…6780e9 |
| Current owner | 0x378f2f…6780e9 |
| Holders | 168 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x378f2f…6780e9 | 96.84% |
| #2 | 0xe09ea5…93873e | 0.82% |
| #3 | 0x8c7858…4b4d04 | 0.67% |
| #4 | 0x2be1e5…b4bd83 | 0.39% |
| #5 | 0x056069…966a2d | 0.24% |
This automated check looked at TONARX's contract code and on-chain data on BSC and scored 12 out of 18. In practice, a sell simulation found the token could be sold at the time of the check, and no honeypot behaviour was detected. No mint function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze all transfers. No blacklist function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not upgradeable, so its core logic cannot be swapped out later by the owner. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, which means the tokens that back the trading pool cannot be withdrawn by whoever added them — a positive signal against a sudden liquidity pull. However, top-10 wallets hold 99.3% of the entire supply across only 168 holders. This is an extremely high concentration: a small number of wallets could sell large amounts at once and move the price sharply, regardless of what the contract code allows or restricts. Buy and sell tax data could not be read from the contract, so any transaction fees applied on trades are unknown from this check.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — functions that exist in the code and basic holder and liquidity data pulled on the date of the check. It says nothing about who the team is, whether they are anonymous, what the token is meant to be used for, how tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the team's intentions are. A contract with no dangerous functions can still be part of a project with no real purpose, abandoned development, or coordinated selling by concentrated holders. This process is fully automated; no person has reviewed this specific contract or project.
Before putting any money in, it would be worth looking at the actual distribution behind that 99.3% figure — whether those wallets are exchanges, locked team allocations, or unrelated individual holders who could sell independently. Checking the project's social channels, any audit reports from named third-party firms, the team's public identity (if any), and how long liquidity has been locked for would also add context this check cannot provide. Tax behaviour should also be confirmed directly, since it could not be read 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.