| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 13.5% | Holder distribution | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Holders | 280 | Token contract | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x56d5bb…fa5424 |
| Holders | 280 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0xc4e9b7…a71247 | 4.29% |
| #2 | 0x56d5bb…fa5424 | 3.83% |
| #3 | 0x9c1b3b…c35608 | 0.73% |
| #4 | 0x1f12ad…c234e1 | 0.69% |
| #5 | 0x2b4b36…2890e3 | 0.68% |
This automated check gave FORS a score of 0 out of 18, and the main reason is the most serious one this tool can detect: a simulated sale of the token failed. In practice, this means that at the time of the check, holders could buy the token but could not sell it back — the contract code itself appears to block the sell transaction. This is known as honeypot behaviour. Alongside this, the contract's source code is not verified, which means nobody can read the underlying logic on the block explorer to see what rules govern transfers, minting, or ownership permissions — the check could only examine the raw bytecode. Liquidity in the trading pool is also not locked, meaning whoever controls it can remove it from circulation at any time, which would make the token difficult or impossible to trade regardless of the honeypot finding. Top-10 wallets hold 13.5% of supply, which is a moderate concentration — not extreme, but still worth noting since large holders moving tokens can affect price and available liquidity.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is a mechanical read of contract behaviour and on-chain data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, their intentions, their track record, or whether any marketing claims about the token are accurate. It does not evaluate tokenomics design, roadmap plausibility, legal structure, or regulatory status in any jurisdiction. No human has reviewed this token or made a judgement call; the result is generated entirely by automated simulation and data pulled from the contract and block explorer on the date shown.
Given that selling was blocked in this check, no amount of money put into this token — not even a small test purchase — can be assumed to be retrievable, since the simulation indicates the contract itself prevents the sell transaction from completing. Anyone wanting to look further, without putting funds at risk, could review the contract bytecode or wait for the source to be verified on the block explorer, check whether the liquidity pool tokens are held in a known locking contract or in a personal wallet, and look at the holder list to see whether the top wallets are exchange or burn addresses rather than individuals. Searching the contract address and project name for independent discussion outside official project channels may also surface relevant history. None of this changes what the check already found, but it may help build a fuller picture before deciding how to proceed.
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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.