| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 5% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 5% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 65.3% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 98.9% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 192521 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x64981b…b89db0 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 192,521 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x73d8bd…4946db | 37.80% |
| #2 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 9.94% |
| #3 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x589e1c…62fb04 | 9.07% |
| #4 | 0x1afa57…5174f4 | 1.98% |
| #5 | 0x10813e…bf4114 | 1.54% |
This automated check scanned Jager's contract code on BSC and scored it 13 out of 18. A test transfer showed the token can currently be sold, which means no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. The contract applies a transfer tax of up to 5% on both buys and sells, so a portion of every trade goes elsewhere rather than to the counterparty — this is a built-in cost, not a sign of inability to sell. No admin mint function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function or address blacklist was detected, so based on current code the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, which means the logic in place today cannot be silently swapped for different logic later. Liquidity is reported as 98.9% burned, which means that portion of the trading pool tokens has been sent to an address no one controls, reducing (though not eliminating) the risk of the liquidity being pulled out from under the market.
What this check does not tell you is anything about the people behind Jager, their track record, or their intentions. It does not assess tokenomics design, whether the tax rate or supply schedule makes sense, marketing claims, roadmap promises, or whether any legal entity stands behind the project. It also cannot see social engineering risks, off-chain agreements, or future code changes a team might deploy through separate contracts. Source code being verified means the code is readable, not that it is well-designed or that the team is trustworthy. Top-10 wallets holding 65.3% of supply is a concentration flag: it means a small number of addresses could move a large share of supply at once, which can affect price sharply regardless of what the contract code allows or forbids — this is a distribution fact, not a comment on intent.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who those top holders are (exchange wallets, the liquidity pool itself, and team/marketing wallets all show up here and aren't equivalent to independent buyers), checking whether the liquidity lock or burn address is verifiable on a block explorer rather than just claimed, reading any audit if one exists and checking who performed it, looking at the age and activity of the holder base rather than just the raw count, and checking whether the tax rate or any permissions can be changed by the owner through functions not captured in this summary. None of this constitutes a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid the token.
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.