| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract bytecode | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 79.9% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 560 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7c0faa…8dcc72 |
| Holders | 560 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x7c0faa…8dcc72 | 34.74% |
| #2 | 0x0ecc16…41275a | 10.00% |
| #3 | 0xf89d7b…5eaa40 | 9.00% |
| #4 | 0xa88f86…7137b5 | 8.00% |
| #5 | 0xb48c5c…fe34a0 | 6.00% |
This automated check of VANA on BSC returned a score of 0 out of 18, and the reason is straightforward: an automated simulation found that selling is blocked by the contract. In practice, this means that wallets which buy this token cannot convert it back out, regardless of what any other signal shows — a non-sellable token scores zero by design, because no other finding offsets the inability to exit a position. Alongside this, the contract bytecode shows blacklisting support, which would let whoever controls the contract block specific addresses from transacting if that function were activated. Source code is not verified, meaning the logic behind these behaviours sits in bytecode only and has not been checked against readable code. The top 10 holders control 79.9% of supply, so a small number of wallets hold the large majority of tokens, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it at any time. Each of these is a separate mechanical capability built into the contract or its current state, not a statement about what has happened or what will happen.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics on the date of the check — it does not assess the team behind the project, their intentions, the token's economic design, any legal structure, marketing claims, or whether a roadmap will be delivered. A contract can show no flags at all and still involve a team that behaves badly, just as a contract with flags does not by itself tell you anything about intent. Absence of a finding only means that particular behaviour was not detected during this check; it is not a certification that the behaviour is impossible or that it won't be introduced later through an upgrade.
Given that sellable status came back negative, there is no scenario here where putting money in, even a small test amount, would demonstrate anything useful — a token that can't be sold keeps whatever is put into it. If you want to understand this project further without any funds at risk, you could look at whether the team has published verified source code elsewhere, review the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who holds and controls it, and look at the holder list to see how concentrated ownership actually is beyond the top-10 figure shown here. None of this changes the core finding: as of this check, selling was blocked at the contract level.
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.