| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No data | Transfer simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Implementation code | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Proxy contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 97.9% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 478843 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x06957a…7b425c |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Current code | 0xa742b4…9e6da7 |
| Holders | 478,843 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x4f8494…0f0ac7 | 97.65% |
| #2 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x0c05d1…f3034a | 0.14% |
| #3 | 0xdaa1a9…021546 | 0.02% |
| #4 | 0x663f30…5713de | 0.02% |
| #5 | 0xdebf27…370f0e | 0.02% |
This automated check scored 蝴蝶王 (蝴蝶王) on BSC as 4 out of 10, and the findings point to several mechanics worth understanding before anything else. The contract owner can mint new tokens at will, which means the total supply is not fixed and can be increased, diluting existing holders. The owner can also change balances directly — in practice, this means the owner has a technical ability to alter how many tokens an address holds, independent of normal transfers. The contract uses an upgradeable proxy, meaning the actual logic governing the token can be swapped out after the fact, so behaviour that holds true today is not guaranteed to hold true tomorrow. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it. Separately, the top 10 holders control 97.9% of supply, meaning a small number of wallets can move a very large share of the token at once. Some contract functions were not reported by the data source and so could not be scored, and sell tax and sellability data were unavailable, which limits how complete this picture is. On the other side, the contract source is verified on the explorer, meaning the code is publicly readable, and no honeypot behaviour or transfer-blocking mechanisms (like pausability or blacklisting) were detected in the implementation code as of the date of this check.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics only — the code's technical permissions and structure. It says nothing about who the team is, whether their stated intentions match their actions, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, or whether any legal entity stands behind the project. A contract can look mechanically similar to thousands of others and still carry very different real-world risk depending on who controls it and what they do with that control.
Before putting money into this token, it would be worth looking into who holds the admin/owner keys and whether those permissions are controlled by a multisig or a single wallet, checking the project's own communications or documentation for an explanation of the mint and balance-change functions, searching for any independent commentary or audits of this specific contract, and confirming directly on-chain (via the explorer) whether the liquidity pool tokens are held by an identifiable, locked, or burned address. Given the holder concentration, it's also worth checking recent large-holder transaction history to see whether big wallets have been moving tokens.
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.