| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 93.9% | Holder distribution | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 100 | Token contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7c0b4f…ec7967 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 100 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 50.00% |
| #2 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x1e885f…a528aa | 39.47% |
| #3 | 0x8560ac…8b8f5d | 1.24% |
| #4 | 0x7c3c63…e69c25 | 0.61% |
| #5 | 0xe8d567…d2d635 | 0.56% |
This automated check of PitBurn on BNB Chain returned 12 out of 18, with a handful of points worth translating into plain terms. The contract's source code is verified, meaning the code behind it is publicly readable rather than hidden. No mechanisms for admin minting, transfer pausing, or address blacklisting were detected on the date of this check, which means, as things stand, the contract owner does not appear to hold the ability to create new tokens out of thin air, freeze a wallet's transfers, or block specific addresses from trading. Buy and sell taxes are both recorded at 0%, and a transfer simulation indicates the token can currently be sold. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, meaning the tokens that back the trading pool have been sent to an address no one controls, making it harder for that liquidity to be pulled out in one move. Against this, the one notable concentration flag is that the top 10 wallets hold 93.9% of total supply across only 100 holders in total — a very small, concentrated holder base where a handful of wallets moving at once could have an outsized effect on price and available liquidity.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics as written on-chain — it checks for specific technical capabilities like minting, pausing, blacklisting, or tax functions. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether any team identities have been disclosed or verified, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether there are off-chain promises or marketing claims, or whether any legal entity stands behind the token. No human has reviewed this project, and absence of a flag only means that particular behaviour was not detected in the contract at the time of the check — it is not a certification that the token is safe, legitimate, or free of other risks.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking into who, if anyone, is publicly identified as the team, and whether that identity can be verified independently. Check whether any wallets among the top 10 holders are known exchange, burn, or team addresses rather than independent holders, since that changes what concentration actually means in practice. Look at the age and trading history of the liquidity pool itself, not just whether it's currently locked, and research whether the project has any community track record, audits from reputable firms, or public communication beyond the token contract itself. Treat this score as one input among several, not a final answer.
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.