| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — the sell tax takes the whole sale | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 100% | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract bytecode | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 98.8% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 549 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xfb2028…ab6f67 |
| Holders | 549 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x975bdf…4e9f4e | 71.31% |
| #2 | 0x0642d5…103df5 | 8.63% |
| #3 | 0x9edb34…2e0992 | 6.79% |
| #4 | 0x7514ce…6fc2d0 | 3.78% |
| #5 | 0x32ec91…8447a4 | 2.38% |
This automated check found that SQL (Squirrel Token) on BSC scores 0 out of 18, and the findings point to several mechanisms that affect what a holder can actually do with the token once bought. The simulation detected that selling is blocked: the contract's sell tax is set at 100%, meaning a sale transaction effectively confiscates the entire amount being sold rather than returning proceeds to the seller. This is classified as honeypot behaviour. Separately, the contract bytecode shows blacklisting functionality is enabled, which would allow whoever controls the contract to prevent specific wallet addresses from transacting. The contract source code is not verified on the block explorer, so the check is reading raw bytecode rather than human-readable code, which limits how much can be confirmed about other functions such as minting or pausing — these are marked "no data" because they could not be determined. Holder distribution shows the top 10 wallets control 98.8% of supply, and liquidity in the trading pool is not locked, meaning it could be withdrawn.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not evaluate the team behind the token, their track record, intentions, or whether any communications made about the project are accurate. It does not assess tokenomics design, business viability, or legal status. A low score reflects what the contract code and bytecode allow a controlling party to do; it says nothing about whether those capabilities have been or will be used, and it is not a judgement on the people involved.
Given that selling is currently blocked, no amount of money put into this token — including a small test purchase — would be retrievable if that behaviour persists, since the simulation indicates sale transactions do not return value to the seller. Before considering any further action, it would be worth independently verifying the contract source code yourself or through a third party, checking whether liquidity lock claims (if any are made elsewhere) can be verified on-chain, reviewing the holder list for concentration risk directly on the block explorer, and treating unverified, untaxed claims made by the project team or its marketing with caution. Findings reflect only what was detected on the date of this check and may not reflect the current state of the contract.
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.