| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not found | Implementation code | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — a single wallet can replace the code | Proxy contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 11% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 94320 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa5f965…441ce9 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0xa5f965…441ce9 — a single wallet |
| Current code | 0x0dfc95…1e30a7 |
| Holders | 94,320 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xef8f38…94f35b | 1.72% |
| #2 | 0xbe54f7…7350c1 | 1.68% |
| #3 | 0x90ee22…a78bc2 | 1.53% |
| #4 | 0x65e625…014919 | 1.50% |
| #5 · contract | 0xa18b59…9a5c73 | 1.05% |
This automated check scored AAV at 0 out of 18, and the main reason is a honeypot flag: the contract's transfer simulation shows that selling is currently blocked. In practice, this means that wallets holding this token may not be able to convert it back out once bought. Alongside this, the contract uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, which means a single wallet retains the ability to replace the underlying contract code entirely — including swapping in new rules for taxes, transfers, minting, or blacklisting, even if none of those behaviours are present today. Liquidity is also not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it at any time, independent of anything the token contract itself does. On the other side, this check did not detect admin minting, transfer pausing, or address blacklisting in the current implementation code, and the contract source is verified on the explorer, meaning the code is at least publicly readable. Because selling is blocked, the score is automatically capped at zero regardless of these other findings.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is a purely mechanical read of the contract code and on-chain state as it exists today — it says nothing about who is behind the project, what their intentions are, whether the tokenomics make sense, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists. A token can pass every mechanical check here and still be run by people with no intention of delivering on stated plans, and conversely, flags like an upgradeable proxy exist in many legitimate projects as a standard engineering pattern. None of these findings should be read as a statement about the people or team behind AAV.
Given that selling is currently blocked, this is not a situation where a small test purchase would reveal anything useful — funds placed into a token that cannot be sold remain stuck regardless of the amount. Before considering any further action, it would be worth researching who controls the proxy admin wallet and whether that information is public, checking the project's own communications or explorer discussion for any explanation of the current sell restriction, and looking at the liquidity pool directly on-chain to see who holds and controls it. Independent confirmation of team identity, any audit history, and community discussion of this specific contract address are all things this check does not provide and would need to be sought elsewhere.
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.