| 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 | 100% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 78 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x1be448…ee718b |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 78 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xe2ce6a…5c9de0 | 99.90% |
| #2 | 0x3ea2d0…79a112 | 0.03% |
| #3 | 0xe27675…a1a0a6 | 0.03% |
| #4 | 0xf194aa…ed6b6e | 0.02% |
| #5 | 0xbcadea…e8d7be | 0.01% |
This automated check looked at the contract code behind this BSC token labelled "BTC" and ran a transfer simulation to see what the owner can actually do to a holder's tokens. No mint function was detected, which means that, as things stand, nobody has a coded ability to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the contract does not currently contain a switch that would freeze everyone's transfers. No blacklist function was detected, meaning there's no built-in mechanism to block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable through a proxy, so the logic that exists today can't quietly be swapped for something else later. The transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, so no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. That said, buy and sell tax data could not be retrieved, so any transaction fees built into trades are unknown from this check alone. The source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is at least publicly readable rather than hidden. The figure that stands out most is holder concentration: the top 10 wallets hold 100% of the supply across only 78 holders total, which is an extremely concentrated distribution and worth sitting with before going further.
It's worth being clear about what this check is not. It reads contract mechanics only — mint, pause, blacklist, upgradeability, sellability, and who holds the supply. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether "BTC" here has any connection to actual Bitcoin (it almost certainly does not, given this is a BSC token with this name), what the stated use case or tokenomics are, whether there's a liquidity lock, or whether the team's intent is to build something long-term. None of that is assessed here, and this result does not speak to legal status, team identity, or marketing claims made elsewhere.
Before putting money toward this, it would be worth independently verifying the token's actual contract address against any official source claiming to issue it, checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, looking at whether the top holder wallets are linked to exchanges or locked contracts rather than individual private wallets, and searching for any audit or community discussion of this specific contract. Given the 100% concentration figure, understanding exactly who the top 10 holders are and what they could do with that supply would be a reasonable next step before forming any view.
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.