| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 7.9% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 374 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x66665f…eef6fa |
| Holders | 374 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xe19ce4…0cd324 | 0.91% |
| #2 | 0x6cd829…85c7c6 | 0.88% |
| #3 · contract | 0x66665f…eef6fa | 0.87% |
| #4 | 0x9bccf3…e06f62 | 0.82% |
| #5 | 0x751ab3…40f32b | 0.79% |
This automated check gave AETH a score of 6 out of 10 on BSC. A simulated sell went through, and buy/sell tax both came back at 0%, so no honeypot behaviour or excessive tax was detected on the date of this check. Top-10 wallets hold 7.9% of supply, which is a relatively modest concentration — meaning no single group of wallets currently appears positioned to dump a dominant share and move the price unilaterally, though this can change at any time as tokens move between wallets. However, several important contract functions — admin mint, pausable transfers, address blacklisting, and upgradeable proxy status — were not reported by the data source and so are not scored here. That is not the same as those functions being absent; it means this check could not confirm either way. The contract's source code is also unverified, so its actual logic cannot be read on the block explorer, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied it could withdraw it from the pool at a later point.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics and on-chain data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, their track record, their intentions, or whether the token's broader economic design (supply schedule, vesting, treasury control) is sound. A token can score reasonably here on mechanics while still carrying risk from its team, its tokenomics, or its legal standing, none of which this check touches. Likewise, a clean read today doesn't mean the contract or its permissions can't change tomorrow, particularly where mint, pause, or blacklist capabilities weren't able to be confirmed.
Given the unverified source and the unconfirmed admin functions, a reasonable next step is to look at the contract directly on the block explorer, or wait for verification to appear, so that mint authority, pause switches, and blacklist logic can actually be inspected rather than inferred. It's also worth checking whether the liquidity pool tokens are held in an identifiable locker contract or in a regular wallet, since unlocked liquidity sitting in a single address is a different risk profile from liquidity locked for a fixed term. Looking at holder growth over time, the concentration trend among top wallets, and any public information about who controls the deployer and liquidity-provider addresses can add useful context. None of this amounts to a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid the token — it's simply the information this type of check is built to surface, and it should be weighed alongside independent research into the project itself.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.