| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 49 | Token contract | 15 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe9300b…66cd50 |
| Holders | 49 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x42047d…f116a5 | 54.55% |
| #2 · contract | 0xe9300b…66cd50 | 45.45% |
| #3 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x969fd0…e3d7ae | 0.00% |
| #4 | 0xb48b11…ed59fd | 0.00% |
| #5 | 0x94ae39…f85e08 | 0.00% |
This automated check of the dortmont (dortmont) contract on BSC returned a score of 0 out of 18, and the findings point to several significant risk indicators rather than a single isolated issue. The simulation detected honeypot behaviour: selling is blocked by the contract, meaning that even if a purchase goes through, converting the token back to BNB or another asset may not be possible. Top-10 wallets were found to hold 100% of supply, which means a very small number of addresses — potentially including the deployer — can move or sell a large share of tokens at once, directly affecting price and liquidity for everyone else. The contract source is not verified, so the actual code behind the token has not been read in human-readable form by this check or anyone else publicly; only the compiled bytecode is visible, which limits what can be confirmed about hidden functions. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it at any time, which can reduce the token's tradeable value sharply and without notice.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of on-chain contract mechanics only — it simulates transfers, reads holder distribution, and inspects available contract data. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the token's supply or incentives are structured, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the stated intentions of the creators are. No person has reviewed this token, and the absence of a flag in a category (for example, where the evidence table shows "No data") means the check could not confirm a behaviour one way or the other on the date of this scan — it is not confirmation that the behaviour is absent.
Given the findings here, concrete next steps would include searching the contract address on a block explorer to see if the source has since been verified, checking whether the liquidity pool tokens are held in a visible lock contract or burn address, reviewing the holder list directly to see which specific wallets make up that 100% concentration, and looking for any independent audit or community discussion of this specific contract address. Attempting a small test transaction and tracking whether it can be reversed is also a common way holders gauge sell restrictions firsthand, understanding that any funds used in doing so are exposed to the risks already flagged above.
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.