| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — the sell tax takes the whole sale | ChainSift simulation | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 100% | ChainSift simulation | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 89 | Token contract | 31 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe9300b…66cd50 |
| Holders | 89 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x42047d…f116a5 | 54.05% |
| #2 · contract | 0xe9300b…66cd50 | 45.95% |
| #3 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x4ef66f…d96003 | 0.00% |
| #4 | 0x3ef61b…48e1a0 | 0.00% |
| #5 | 0x064abc…10b6a4 | 0.00% |
This automated check gave Xmask a score of 0 out of 18, and the most important finding is that selling is blocked by the contract: ChainSift's simulation found that attempting to sell results in a tax of up to 100%, meaning a sale effectively confiscates the entire amount rather than returning proceeds to the seller. This is the pattern typically described as a honeypot. In practical terms, this means that tokens bought now could not be converted back into other assets through a normal sale — any money put in would remain stuck in the token. Alongside this, the top 10 holders control 100% of the supply, which means a very small number of wallets hold the entire circulating amount and could affect the market by moving their holdings. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, so its underlying logic cannot be read in plain terms — the check is based on bytecode behaviour only. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool is free to withdraw it at any time, which would leave remaining holders unable to trade against it at all.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It only reads contract mechanics as they exist on-chain on the date of the check — it does not evaluate the team behind the project, the tokenomics or distribution plan, any legal structure, marketing claims, or intent. No human has reviewed this contract or project; the findings above come entirely from automated simulation and on-chain data reading. A token passing every mechanical check still says nothing about whether the people behind it are trustworthy, and a token failing checks, as this one has, does not itself prove fraudulent intent — though the combination of a blocked sell path, unlocked liquidity, and concentrated holdings are all things that materially affect what a holder could do with tokens after buying them.
Given the sell-blocking finding specifically, no purchase — test-sized or otherwise — would allow funds to be recovered through a normal sale, since the simulation indicates the sell path itself returns none of the value. Anyone wanting to look further, independent of this check, might examine the contract's transaction history on the block explorer for sell transactions that succeeded and at what value, look at whether the liquidity pool address is a known locker or an open wallet, and treat the lack of verified source code as a gap in available information rather than something that can currently be filled in.
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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.