| 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 | 79.4% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 67552 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xd8b1c9…6e515f |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 67,552 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x73d8bd…4946db | 60.19% |
| #2 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x3c7959…a6bc58 | 14.19% |
| #3 · contract | 0x6157c8…e65257 | 0.86% |
| #4 | 0xe60ef5…67a054 | 0.82% |
| #5 | 0xa70594…72e362 | 0.80% |
This automated check scanned the BOB contract on BNB Chain and found no mint function, meaning the owner cannot create new tokens and dilute holders, and no pause function, meaning transfers cannot be frozen. No blacklist mechanism was detected, so addresses cannot be selectively blocked from trading, and the contract is not upgradeable, so its code cannot be swapped for different logic after the fact. A simulated transfer showed the token can be sold, with buy and sell tax both recorded at 0%, and no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of this check. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the published code can be read and matched to what is actually deployed, and the liquidity pool shows as 100% burned, meaning that liquidity is not sitting in a wallet that could withdraw it. One figure stands out: the top 10 holders together control 79.4% of the total supply. That level of concentration means a small number of wallets could sell large amounts at once, which can move the price sharply regardless of what the contract code allows or restricts.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads the contract's mechanics as written and deployed — what functions exist, how tokens move, who can call what. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, whether there is a legal entity standing behind any claims made about the token, or what the stated intentions for the project actually are. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals or an unclear roadmap, so a high score here is not a judgement on the project as a whole.
Before deciding anything, it's worth looking at who the top holders actually are — whether they're exchange wallets, locked team allocations, or unlinked individual addresses, since that changes what the concentration figure actually implies. Checking the project's official channels, any audit reports from named third parties, and whether the team is public or pseudonymous would add context the contract alone can't provide. Looking at trading volume and liquidity depth on the relevant exchange is also useful, since a thin market can be disproportionately affected by a handful of large holders. None of these steps turn a finding into a guarantee, but they fill in parts of the picture that a contract-level scan cannot reach.
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.