| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 43.1% | Holder distribution | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 7619 | Token contract | 7 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0f9349…c9abb3 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 7,619 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x1bdd8e…01e383 | 12.29% |
| #2 | 0x498208…6e89cb | 10.64% |
| #3 · contract | 0xdb6f1d…3f936d | 8.77% |
| #4 · contract | 0x73f432…d50d16 | 2.09% |
| #5 · contract | 0xa00ee4…34d1df | 1.89% |
This automated check on Stonks (BSC) returned 16 out of 18, which reflects contract mechanics only, not an overall judgement of the token. Based on the findings as of the check date, no admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so transfers do not appear to be able to be frozen by the owner. No address blacklist function was detected, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from selling. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, so its underlying logic cannot be swapped out later. A sell simulation succeeded, so no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of the check, meaning holders could execute a sell. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows the code to be read by anyone rather than staying hidden. Two findings are flagged for attention: the top 10 wallets hold 43.1% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of addresses could sell large amounts at once and move the price sharply; and liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, reducing or removing the ability to sell the token on that pool.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads the contract's code and current on-chain state — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is anonymous, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there are off-chain promises or marketing claims, or whether any legal structure exists. A token can pass every mechanical check here and still carry risk from factors entirely outside the contract itself, such as coordinated selling by large holders or liquidity being pulled.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at a few concrete things yourself: check the liquidity pool directly on a site like a BSC explorer or a DEX analytics tool to see who holds the LP tokens and whether they're locked anywhere, since "not locked" here means a lock wasn't detected, not that one can never be added. Look at the top holder wallets individually to see if they're exchange addresses, contract addresses, or unlabelled wallets, since that changes how the concentration figure should be read. Search for the project's social channels, any audit reports, and whether the team is publicly identified. Finally, re-run checks like this one periodically, since contract permissions, liquidity status and holder distribution can all change after the fact.
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.