| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 2% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 63.2% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 3726 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xaf56a5…3ae0e2 |
| Current owner | 0xaf56a5…3ae0e2 |
| Holders | 3,726 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x81e0ef…70334d | 25.86% |
| #2 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 15.71% |
| #3 | 0xfd0ad5…2e8189 | 9.05% |
| #4 | 0xe0f533…cb66e7 | 2.44% |
| #5 | 0xb7d2f2…887097 | 2.12% |
This automated check of the MARVIN contract on BSC scored 11 out of 18, and a few of the findings are worth understanding in plain terms. A transfer tax of up to 2% means a small cut is taken whenever tokens move, reducing what arrives at the other end. The contract includes a pause function, which means the owner has the technical ability to stop all transfers for all holders at any time, for any reason — including after a purchase. It also supports blacklisting, meaning the owner can block specific wallet addresses from transacting, again at their discretion. Top-10 wallets hold 63.2% of the supply, which is a high concentration: if those holders sell in size, it can move the price sharply, and coordinated or single large sales are easier when ownership is this concentrated. On the more reassuring side, no admin mint function was detected (so the owner was not found to be able to create new tokens out of thin air at the time of the check), the contract is not upgradeable, source code is verified on the block explorer, and a transfer simulation found the token sellable — no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. Liquidity is not locked, however, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, reducing or removing the ability to trade the token at a fair price.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — no person has reviewed it, and it says nothing about who the team is, whether they are contactable or credible, how the tokenomics are structured beyond what's visible on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the team's intentions are. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be part of a project with no real backing, and conversely some flagged features exist in established projects for legitimate operational reasons. This check cannot tell you which situation applies here.
Before putting money into this or any token, it's worth independently verifying who the team is and whether they're publicly identifiable, looking for an independent liquidity lock or vesting contract rather than taking a project's word for it, checking the distribution and recent activity of those top-10 wallets on the block explorer, reading the project's own documentation for why pause and blacklist functions exist, and searching for independent community discussion or audits beyond this one automated report.
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.