| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.5% | Holder distribution | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 128 | Token contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb484f9…542be8 |
| Current owner | 0xf2c54f…ab441f |
| Holders | 128 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf2c54f…ab441f | 83.09% |
| #2 · contract | 0xa70b95…6cb443 | 14.50% |
| #3 · PancakeV3 · contract | 0x253cce…bf379e | 1.00% |
| #4 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x46fd14…812367 | 0.26% |
| #5 | 0xde421e…94179b | 0.20% |
This automated check of 1000Q (Omegasphere) on BNB Smart Chain scored 10 out of 18, and a few findings are worth translating into plain terms. The most significant is that the contract owner can change balances directly — in practice, this means the owner has a function that lets them alter how many tokens an address holds, which could include reducing a holder's balance without that holder's involvement. Top-10 wallets controlling 99.5% of supply means that a very small number of addresses hold almost the entire token supply, so decisions made by those wallets — selling, transferring, or otherwise moving tokens — could affect the market for everyone else disproportionately. Liquidity not being locked means whoever supplied the trading pool is free to withdraw it at any time, which would make it difficult or impossible to sell the token through that pool. On a more neutral note, the contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code behind the token is publicly readable, and as of this check no admin mint, pausable transfers, blacklist function, or upgradeable proxy pattern were detected — none of those specific mechanisms were found in the contract on the date reviewed, though their absence today does not guarantee anything about future contract versions or related contracts.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it does not assess who the team behind the token is, their track record, the project's tokenomics or stated use case, any legal structure, marketing claims, or intent. A contract can show no risky mechanics and still be tied to a project with no real plan, and conversely a project with real intentions may carry contract-level risks like the ones flagged here. No human has reviewed this token; the findings come entirely from automated analysis of the contract and current holder data.
Before putting money into this token, it would be worth independently verifying who controls the top wallets and whether any are linked to exchanges, locked team allocations, or the liquidity pool itself. Checking whether the liquidity pool tokens are held in a known locking contract (rather than just an individual wallet) would clarify the real risk around liquidity being pulled. Looking at the project's own communications, any audit reports from third parties, and the history of the owner wallet's past transactions could also provide useful context. Given the owner's direct balance-change capability, testing with a very small amount first, and confirming community discussion around this specific contract address, are reasonable practical steps before committing further funds.
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.