| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract bytecode | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 55.3% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 9120 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x041d0b…4bd7e0 |
| Holders | 9,120 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 25.77% |
| #2 | 0x8c7fb1…e0d4ff | 5.13% |
| #3 | 0x02515d…878ee3 | 3.82% |
| #4 | 0xd6ce91…dee9de | 3.75% |
| #5 | 0x133c10…33c881 | 3.05% |
This automated check gave ZTC (ZenChain) a score of 2 out of 10, which reflects several risk indicators found in the contract rather than a judgement on the project itself. The bytecode shows blacklisting functionality is enabled, which means whoever controls the contract has the technical ability to block specific wallet addresses from transacting with the token — potentially including yours, after you hold it. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, so this check could only read the raw bytecode rather than human-readable code; that limits how much could be confirmed about mint functions, pause functions, or proxy upgradeability, all of which are marked as "no data" here because they could not be reliably assessed, not because they are confirmed absent. Holder concentration is also notable: the top 10 wallets control 55.3% of supply, meaning a small number of holders could influence price materially if they were to sell. On a more favourable note, a simulated buy-and-sell test did not detect honeypot behaviour — the token was sellable with 0% buy and sell tax at the time of the check — and the liquidity pool shows as 100% burned, which removes one common rug-pull mechanism where developers withdraw liquidity.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it has not been reviewed by a person, and it says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the stated intentions of the developers are. A contract can look mechanically unremarkable and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, flagged mechanics don't automatically mean bad intent — blacklisting functions, for example, are sometimes included for legitimate compliance reasons.
Before putting money toward this token, it would be worth looking at who controls the contract's admin functions and whether that control sits with a multisig, a timelock, or a single wallet. Checking whether the top-10 holder wallets include known exchange or liquidity addresses (rather than individual holders) would help clarify the concentration figure. Searching for the project's team identity, any audits by third parties, its social presence, and community discussion would add context this check cannot provide. Given the lack of verified source code, treating any claims about the contract's behaviour with caution until verification appears would be a reasonable precaution.
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.