| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 66.4% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 244 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x5bfa87…ba1e0a |
| Holders | 244 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xbfd3a9…3a27fb | 9.70% |
| #2 | 0xded514…22a0f7 | 7.82% |
| #3 | 0x286f97…c4ac6c | 7.20% |
| #4 | 0xd1b08f…df66f8 | 7.10% |
| #5 | 0xbfd203…6df4e9 | 7.00% |
This automated check scored LATI 14 out of 18, and it is worth understanding what each finding actually means rather than treating the number alone as a verdict. A sell simulation on the date of the check completed successfully, and no mechanisms were detected that would let the contract owner mint new tokens, pause transfers, or blacklist specific wallets from trading. The buy tax reads 0%, though no sell tax figure could be retrieved, meaning that cost is currently unknown rather than confirmed at zero. The contract is not upgradeable through a proxy, which means the code governing these behaviours cannot be silently swapped out later. Two points stand out as higher risk: the top 10 holders together control 66.4% of the supply, and the liquidity backing the token is not locked. Concentrated holdings mean a small number of wallets could sell large amounts at once and move the price sharply, and unlocked liquidity means whoever controls it could withdraw it from the trading pool, which can leave a token difficult or impossible to sell at a reasonable price even though no honeypot behaviour was detected today.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not know who the team behind LATI is, whether they have a track record, what the tokenomics or vesting schedule look like, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what their intentions are. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or bad actors behind it, and conversely a project with an unlocked liquidity flag is not automatically operating in bad faith. This is a technical snapshot, not a judgement on the people or business behind the token, and no human has reviewed these results — the analysis is entirely automated.
Before putting money into LATI, it would be worth looking into who holds that unlocked liquidity and whether there is any public commitment or timeline to lock it, since this directly affects how easily the pool could be drained. It is also worth checking whether the top-10 wallets include known exchange or team addresses rather than unrelated holders, as that context changes the concentration risk considerably. Looking for an independent audit, a public team or company behind the project, and any community discussion of past liquidity or sell-tax behaviour would add information this check cannot provide. Because the sell tax figure is missing here, confirming the actual cost of selling directly through the contract or a block explorer before committing funds would also be sensible.
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.