| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xf77df7…dbdd46 |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xcd99ea…810cf6 | 80.00% |
| #2 | 0x7fbe24…c37b46 | 20.00% |
This automated check scanned PTAH's contract on BSC and returned a score of 0 out of 10, which reflects a combination of missing information and confirmed risk indicators rather than a single catastrophic flaw. A simulated transaction showed the token can currently be sold, with no buy or sell tax detected on the date of the check. However, several important contract functions — including whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, or blacklist specific addresses — were not reported by the data source, so they are unscored rather than ruled out. Separately, the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, meaning only raw bytecode is available; this makes it harder to confirm exactly what the contract can do, since nobody (human or automated) can read the logic directly without reverse-engineering it. On top of this, the top 10 holders control 100% of the supply across just two wallet addresses, and the liquidity behind the token is not locked, meaning whoever controls that liquidity could withdraw it at any time.
What this check does not tell you is just as important as what it does. This is purely a mechanical read of the contract and current on-chain data — it says nothing about who is behind the project, what they intend to do, whether there is a real product or roadmap, or how the token's economics are supposed to work long-term. A contract can look mechanically simple while still being part of a setup where a small number of holders or the liquidity provider can affect price or access to funds in ways this check cannot predict. Automated tools also cannot assess intent, marketing claims, or legal structure.
Given the combination of unverified source code, total supply concentrated in two wallets, and unlocked liquidity, it would be worth looking at the contract's transaction history on the block explorer to see how the two holding addresses have behaved, checking whether a liquidity pool exists at all and who controls it, and searching for any independent audit or community discussion of this specific contract address. Since the data source could not confirm the presence or absence of mint, pause, or blacklist functions, treat those as unknown rather than ruled out until verified source code or a manual bytecode review clarifies them. Any decision about this token should be based on your own further research, not on this score alone.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.