| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No data | Transfer simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 89.9% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 113 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x734966…ed7acc |
| Holders | 113 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x734966…ed7acc | 66.67% |
| #2 | 0x014ce3…f9c924 | 12.72% |
| #3 | 0x5afcc8…4174d4 | 3.30% |
| #4 | 0xcf785c…74b90a | 1.58% |
| #5 | 0xe3b550…35def8 | 1.39% |
This automated check scored TSL 1 out of 10, which reflects a combination of missing data and concerning concentration, not a confirmed exploit. Because the contract's source code is not verified, the system could only read raw bytecode, and several mechanics — whether the token can be sold, what sell tax applies, whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, or blacklist addresses — were not reported. Unreported does not mean safe; it means this check could not confirm the behaviour either way on the date it ran. Separately, the top 10 holders control 89.9% of the supply across only 113 known holders, which means a small number of wallets could sell or move large amounts at once, something that can affect the price available to everyone else. On the positive side, liquidity is reported as 100% burned, meaning the liquidity pool tokens were sent to a burn address and the listed liquidity cannot easily be withdrawn by whoever created the pool — though this does not offset the unverified contract or unknown sell behaviour.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads the contract's code and on-chain data: it cannot tell you who the team is, whether they have a track record, what their stated plans are for the token, or whether marketing claims (including the use of a recognisable name like "Tesla") have any connection to the real company. It does not assess tokenomics design, legal structure, jurisdiction, or intent. A low score here is not a statement about the people behind the project; it's a statement about what the contract's mechanics do or do not allow, based only on what could be read automatically.
Given that sellability was not confirmed and the sell tax is unknown, this is a situation where putting funds in — even a small "test" amount — is not a way to find out if it's sellable, because if the contract blocks sales, any funds sent in remain stuck with no reliable way to retrieve them. Before considering any action, it would be worth seeking a verified source contract (or an independent audit) so the actual code can be read line by line, checking the block explorer directly for the real Tesla Inc.'s official statements or lack thereof regarding any token, and researching whether the top holder wallets are linked to exchanges, locked team allocations, or a single unknown party. None of these steps are offered here as advice to proceed — only as concrete gaps this automated check leaves open.
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.