| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2108 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xc25a57…58498d |
| Holders | 2,108 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x8b9168…d69e3f | 5000003.66% |
| #2 | 0x8825e8…901008 | 253.28% |
| #3 | 0x0000d4…9e0e00 | 84.43% |
| #4 | 0xcf6e0c…8bd1a0 | 81.96% |
| #5 | 0xa3a8fa…b46b4a | 38.29% |
This automated check found that CUDA's contract blocks selling: an attempt to simulate a sell transaction failed, meaning holders who buy this token may not be able to sell it back. This is the most serious category of finding this check can return, and it's why the score is 0 out of 12 regardless of any other signal. Separately, the contract allows the owner to mint new tokens at will, which means the circulating supply is not fixed and could be increased at the owner's discretion, diluting existing holders. The contract's source code is also not verified on the block explorer, so this check could only examine the raw bytecode rather than readable code, which limits how much could be confirmed about other mechanics. No data was returned for sell tax, transfer pausing, address blacklisting, or proxy upgradeability, meaning those specific checks did not produce a result on the date of this scan, not that those risks are absent. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics only, based on what could be detected on the date shown. It says nothing about who is behind the project, how tokens are distributed among the team versus the public, what the project claims to do, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or whether the people involved intend to act in good faith. A contract can show no technical red flags and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, flagged mechanics don't themselves prove intent. None of this is assessed here.
Given that selling is currently blocked, putting money into this token means that money would likely stay locked in the contract with no ability to retrieve it through a normal sale, so no amount of test buying would demonstrate otherwise. If you want to look further before forming any view, you could check the block explorer directly for the contract owner's transaction history, look at whether the liquidity pool tokens are held in a visible wallet or a time-locked contract, review how the top holders (especially the first 20 or so addresses) acquired their tokens, and search for any independent audit or community discussion of this specific contract address. Treat anything found here as a starting point for further questions, not as a conclusion.
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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.