| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 43.2% | Holder distribution | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 90.5% until 30 Sept 2200, 8.9% burned | LP holders · PinkLock02 | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 88 | Token contract | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x70b19c…a5bc6a |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 88 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0xc8f9aa…690f04 | 11.31% |
| #2 · contract | 0xf033f2…214dd9 | 4.29% |
| #3 | 0xf556fb…35f328 | 4.00% |
| #4 | 0xbdf1be…d52355 | 4.00% |
| #5 · contract | 0x9a16fa…7bc1d3 | 3.82% |
This automated check of $ICAT on BSC found no honeypot behaviour at the time of testing — a simulated transfer went through, meaning the contract did not block a sale outright. No admin mint function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, no address blacklist capability, and no upgradeable proxy pattern were detected in the contract code, so as it stands the owner does not appear to hold those specific levers to trap or dilute holders. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the code that was reviewed is the same code actually running, rather than a hidden or mismatched implementation. Liquidity is reported as 90.5% locked until a date far in the future, with a further 8.9% burned, which is relevant because locked or burned liquidity limits how easily the pool can be pulled out from under holders — though a lock is only as reliable as the locking contract and the terms attached to it. Buy and sell tax data could not be determined here, so any transaction-time fee structure remains unconfirmed and worth treating as an open question.
It's worth being clear about what this score does not cover. Top-10 wallets holding 43.2% of supply, across only 88 holders total, is a meaningful concentration signal — it means a small number of addresses could move the market significantly if they chose to sell, regardless of what the contract code allows. This check only reads contract mechanics: what the code technically permits. It says nothing about who the team is, whether they are contactable or pseudonymous, how the token's supply and incentives are actually structured, whether any marketing claims are accurate, or whether there is a legal entity standing behind the project. None of those things can be inferred from bytecode, and no human has reviewed this token's intent or conduct — this is an automated read of contract mechanics only.
Before putting money in, it would be sensible to look at who holds those top ten wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, check the liquidity lock directly on PinkLock02 to confirm the terms match what's reported, try a small test buy and sell to see real tax behaviour in practice, and look for any independent information about the team or project outside the contract itself. Given the holder concentration and unresolved tax data here, those checks are particularly worth doing before treating this score as reassurance.
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.