| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 31.6% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 7952 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x9b5312…c3ecb0 |
| Holders | 7,952 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf20c09…f8aed3 | 4.34% |
| #2 | 0x6b4896…01cc6d | 4.06% |
| #3 | 0xc671d1…27c2e8 | 3.79% |
| #4 | 0x729209…b16e55 | 3.14% |
| #5 | 0x81e49a…646dc9 | 2.88% |
This automated check gave DAWG a score of 5 out of 10, based on what could be read from the contract and the data available on the day of the check. A simulated buy and sell both went through with no buy or sell tax detected, and no honeypot behaviour was detected during that test — meaning the simulation did not find a mechanism that let tokens be bought but not sold. However, the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, so this check is reading raw bytecode only. That matters because several common owner-side controls — the ability to mint new tokens, pause transfers, blacklist individual addresses, or upgrade the contract's logic entirely — could not be confirmed or ruled out; they simply show as "no data" rather than "absent." In practice, this means the check cannot tell you whether the contract owner retains any of these powers, and an unverified contract makes that uncertainty harder to resolve without manual code review. Separately, liquidity for this token is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, and the top 10 holders control 31.6% of total supply, meaning a concentrated group of wallets has the ability to move a large share of tokens at once.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics and on-chain data only — it does not assess the team behind the token, who holds the unlocked liquidity or why, the project's tokenomics or vesting schedule, any legal or regulatory status, or the intent behind the project's design. A clean reading on contract mechanics says nothing about whether the people operating the project plan to act in holders' interests, and conversely, missing data fields here reflect gaps in what could be read automatically, not a judgement about the people involved.
Given the unverified source and the unlocked liquidity, it would be reasonable to look at the contract code directly or seek a manual audit before relying on the "no data" fields as reassurance, since verification would let the mint, pause, blacklist and upgradeable-proxy questions actually be answered. It's also worth checking who holds the liquidity pool tokens and whether there's any public commitment or timelock on them, looking at how the top holder wallets were funded and whether they're linked to exchanges or the deployer, and checking whether the project has published any team identity, audit report, or documentation that can be independently verified. None of these steps are covered by this score, and none of this constitutes investment advice.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.