| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 98.3% | Holder distribution | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 13912 | Token contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
This automated check on DEBIT (Teller) scored 10 out of 18, and a few of the findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes an active mint function, which means whoever controls the owner address can create new tokens at will — this can dilute the value of tokens already held by others, since supply can increase without holders' input. Top-10 wallets were found to hold 98.3% of the total supply on the date of this check, meaning a very small number of addresses could sell large amounts at once, which can move the price sharply and is a common feature of concentrated holdings regardless of the project's intent. Liquidity was found not to be locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens could withdraw the paired assets from the trading pool, potentially leaving remaining holders unable to sell at a reasonable price. On the positive side, no buy or sell tax was detected, no pausable-transfer or blacklist function was found in the contract, it is not an upgradeable proxy, a sell simulation succeeded, and the contract source is verified on the block explorer — none of these indicate honeypot-style mechanics as of the check date.
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 — it looks at what the code technically allows the owner or large holders to do, not at who they are, what their intentions are, or how the project is actually being run. It does not assess the team behind the token, whether any roadmap or product claims are credible, the token's broader economic design, marketing practices, or any legal or regulatory status. A contract can look mechanically clean and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals or undisclosed risks, and conversely, some flagged mechanics exist for legitimate operational reasons. This check cannot tell you which situation applies here.
Before putting money into this token, consider looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking whether the mint function has been used recently or has a capped limit, looking up the liquidity pool address directly to see if lock or vesting arrangements exist outside the contract itself, and searching for any independent audit, public team information, or community discussion about the project. Treat an automated score as one input among several, not a final verdict.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.
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.