| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 87.7% | Holder distribution | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 30870 | Token contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xeabf22…3f642a |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 30,870 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf97781…41acec | 37.50% |
| #2 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 29.50% |
| #3 | 0xc882b1…84f071 | 3.90% |
| #4 · PancakeV3 | 0x90a544…513491 | 3.45% |
| #5 | 0x8894e0…e2d4e3 | 3.30% |
This automated check of the mubarak (MUBARAK) contract on BSC scored 13 out of 18. In plain terms, the scan looked at what the contract's code allows the owner or deployer to do to anyone holding the token, and at how the tokens and trading liquidity are currently arranged. On the date of this check, no minting function was detected, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the contract does not currently appear to let anyone freeze all transfers. No blacklist function was detected, meaning there is no evidence of a mechanism to block specific wallets from trading. Buy and sell tax both read as 0%, and a transfer simulation indicates the token is currently sellable, which is a basic honeypot check — no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of testing. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows anyone to read the actual code rather than trusting a description. Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than reassurances: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it and leave buyers unable to sell at a reasonable price, and the top 10 holders control 87.7% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could move the market significantly if they sell.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics only — the functions written into the code and the current state of holders and liquidity as recorded on-chain. It does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether marketing claims match reality, or whether any legal or regulatory structure applies. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals, an anonymous team, or unsustainable tokenomics. This tool cannot see intent, and a clean automated read is not a certification of trustworthiness.
Before considering any transaction, it would be reasonable to look at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, to check whether the liquidity pool tokens are held by an identifiable address or contract and whether a lock or vesting schedule exists elsewhere even though none was found here, to look for a public team, audit reports from independent third parties, and any social or community history, and to check the liquidity pool size directly on a chain explorer to gauge how much could be withdrawn and by whom. None of this replaces independent research, and nothing in this check should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell.
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.