| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 55.9% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% until 29 Nov 2026 | LP holders · UNCX | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 29516 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe1ee48…dc5e4b |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 29,516 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0xe5425b…626bc6 | 33.39% |
| #2 · contract | 0x4f1ddc…70d907 | 7.82% |
| #3 | 0x28816c…e29307 | 5.00% |
| #4 · contract | 0xf1669c…7a6e30 | 1.72% |
| #5 | 0xe74709…832082 | 1.45% |
This automated check scanned Dank Doge's contract code and current on-chain state on BSC, and scored it 14 out of 18. In practice, this means a transfer simulation found the token sellable, with no honeypot behaviour detected on the date of the check — buy and sell tax are both set to 0%, so no hidden fee was found eating into trades either way. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner was not found to have a built-in way to create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function or address blacklist was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers generally or block specific wallets from moving their tokens. The contract is also not upgradeable, meaning its rules cannot be swapped out for different ones after the fact, and its source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the logic described above can be independently read by anyone rather than taken on trust. Liquidity is reported as 100% locked until 29 November 2026, which reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of the pooled funds being withdrawn by whoever controls it before that date. One point worth flagging: the top 10 holders currently control 55.9% of supply, which is a concentration level worth weighing, since large holders selling in size can move price sharply regardless of what the contract code permits.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics and current on-chain data only — it does not assess who the team behind Dank Doge is, whether they have a track record, how the tokenomics are structured beyond what's listed above, what legal entity (if any) stands behind the project, or what their intentions are. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be attached to a project with no real development activity, an anonymous team, or marketing that overstates its prospects. None of that is visible from contract code alone, and nothing here should be read as a judgement on the people or plans behind the token.
Before putting any money in, it's worth independently verifying the liquidity lock directly on UNCX using the pool address, rather than relying on a label. It's also worth looking into who the team is and whether they're identifiable, checking for an audit from a recognised firm, reading whatever documentation or whitepaper exists for how the token is meant to be used, and looking at the holder list yourself to see whether the top wallets look like exchange or lock contracts versus individual holders. Searching the project name alongside terms like "review" or "complaint" across independent forums can also surface issues that contract analysis won't catch. None of the findings above constitute financial advice, and none of them confirm the project's legitimacy or future performance.
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.