| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 90.1% | Holder distribution | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 23490 | Token contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x853db6…a523cc |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 23,490 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf97781…41acec | 42.95% |
| #2 | 0x000000…00dead | 16.88% |
| #3 | 0x8894e0…e2d4e3 | 12.03% |
| #4 · PancakeV3 | 0x6dafbf…8a8d1f | 6.72% |
| #5 | 0x0d0707…b492fe | 5.21% |
This automated check of TUT on BNB Smart Chain scored 12 out of 18, and it is worth translating what that actually covers. A transfer simulation on the date of the check found the token sellable, with no buy or sell tax detected, meaning trades were not blocked or penalised in that test. No admin mint function, transfer-pausing mechanism, address blacklist capability, or upgradeable proxy pattern were detected in the contract code, which means the owner does not currently appear to hold those specific levers over holders — they could not mint new supply out of thin air, freeze transfers, block a specific wallet from selling, or swap in new contract logic through an upgrade path, based on what the code shows today. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code that was checked is the same code humans can read line-by-line, which is a positive for transparency but not a judgement on what that code intends to do long-term. Two things pull the score down: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could, in principle, remove it at any time and leave holders unable to sell into a paired market; and the top 10 holders control 90.1% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could move a very large share of the token at once, whether by selling or otherwise, with outsized effect on price and available liquidity.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics — code, functions, and on-chain balances — as they exist right now. It says nothing about who the team behind TUT is, what their track record might be, how the token's supply or incentives are structured beyond what is visible on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the owner's intentions are. No flag being present does not mean a risk does not exist elsewhere; it means that specific behaviour was not detected in the contract at the time of this check.
Before putting money into TUT, it would be worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking the liquidity pool directly on a chain explorer to see who controls it and how much is in it, searching for any public information about the team or project behind TUT, and reviewing the contract's full source code or a manual audit if one exists, rather than relying on an automated score alone.
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.