| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 32.2% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1106 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xc06747…188fa0 |
| Holders | 1,106 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x238a35…d5e6c4 | 11.90% |
| #2 · contract | 0x910952…893194 | 8.29% |
| #3 | 0x1de126…f4103a | 2.10% |
| #4 · contract | 0xd06fe7…6647d1 | 2.02% |
| #5 | 0xdfb364…8baddd | 1.60% |
This automated check looked at GENI's contract code and on-chain data as they stood at the time of the scan, and scored 17 out of 18. In practical terms, a test transfer simulation found no honeypot behaviour, meaning the token could be sold at the time of testing, and both the buy and sell tax were recorded at 0%. No admin minting function was detected, which would otherwise let the owner create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers at will, and no blacklist function was detected, which would otherwise allow specific wallets to be blocked from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable through a proxy, meaning the logic cannot be swapped out later for different code. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code is publicly readable rather than hidden. Two points stand out: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it and sharply reduce the ability to sell at a reasonable price, and the top 10 holders together control 32.2% of supply, a concentration level that means large sales by a small number of wallets could move the price significantly.
None of this tells you who is behind the project, what their track record is, whether the stated purpose of the token matches its actual use, or what the longer-term plans for supply, marketing or liquidity are. This check reads contract mechanics and current holder distribution only; it says nothing about team identity, tokenomics design beyond what's on-chain, legal structure, jurisdiction, or intent. A clean mechanical read is not an assessment of the people or promises behind the token.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking at who holds the liquidity pool tokens and whether there's any public commitment or lock contract covering them, since unlocked liquidity can be withdrawn at any time. It's also worth checking whether the top holder wallets are known exchange or team addresses rather than independent buyers, as that changes what concentration means in practice. Looking at the project's public communication, any audit beyond automated scanning, and how long the contract and liquidity have existed can also add useful context. Because this is a point-in-time automated scan, re-checking closer to any decision is reasonable, since contract permissions, holder concentration and liquidity status can all change after the fact.
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.