| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 89% | Holder distribution | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 13693 | Token contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x2ba7ed…54e3fc |
| Current owner | 0x9d0698…055915 |
| Holders | 13,693 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xa39945…14b71c | 39.80% |
| #2 | 0x8894e0…e2d4e3 | 29.91% |
| #3 | 0xe2fc31…a93ae1 | 5.43% |
| #4 | 0xab782b…3ee1bc | 3.60% |
| #5 | 0xb0a3a2…7e4411 | 3.53% |
This automated check scored ACE 9 out of 18 on the mechanics detected in its contract code as of the check date. Several findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract owner can mint new tokens at will, meaning the total supply is not fixed and can be increased, which dilutes existing holders' share of the token. The owner can also change balances directly, which means account holdings could be altered by the contract owner without a corresponding transfer taking place. Top-10 wallets hold 89% of supply, so a small number of addresses could move a large portion of the circulating tokens, which tends to affect price more than would be the case with a wider spread of holders. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens could withdraw the paired assets from the trading pool at any time, which can leave buyers unable to sell at a meaningful price. On the more reassuring side, no honeypot behaviour was detected in the sell simulation, buy and sell tax were both read as 0%, and the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code backing these findings is publicly readable rather than hidden.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at what the code allows the owner to do, not at who the owner is, what they intend to do, or whether they will do it. It does not assess the team behind the token, their track record, or whether they are anonymous. It does not evaluate tokenomics such as vesting schedules, allocation fairness, or whether minted tokens are intended for a stated purpose. It does not consider legal structure, jurisdiction, or regulatory status. A high score here does not mean a project is safe, and a low score does not mean a project is a scam — it means specific technical permissions and conditions were or were not detected in the code at the time of the check.
Before putting money in, it would be sensible to look into who controls the contract's owner address and whether that control sits with a multisig, a timelock, or a single private key. It is also worth checking whether the liquidity pool tokens are held anywhere identifiable, searching for any public information about the team or project history, reviewing whether the large top-10 wallets include known exchange or lock addresses rather than individual holders, and re-running a check like this closer to the time of any transaction, since contract permissions and liquidity conditions can change.
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.