| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 3% | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 3% | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 92.9% | Holder distribution | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 21.4% until 16 Nov 2026, 62.9% burned | LP holders · PinkLock02 | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 4202 | Token contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x8e989b…f63d31 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 4,202 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PinkLock02 · contract · locked | 0x407993…ee1bbe | 60.00% |
| #2 · contract | 0x901443…278942 | 20.63% |
| #3 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x7481d7…00a93d | 5.48% |
| #4 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 5.00% |
| #5 | 0xf3d386…fad4da | 0.56% |
This automated check scanned the MARSERA (MERA) contract on BNB Smart Chain and scored it 11 out of 18 on the mechanics it tests for. In practice, this means a few things for a holder. A transfer tax of up to 3% on both buys and sells was found written into the contract, so a portion of every trade is deducted automatically — this is not a hidden fee, but it does reduce what you receive on exit. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not currently have a coded way to create new tokens and dilute supply. Transfers were not found to be pausable, and no blacklist function was detected, so the owner does not appear to have the ability to freeze the contract or block specific wallets from trading. A test transfer simulation confirmed the token is sellable, which is a basic but meaningful check against honeypot-style contracts that let you buy but not sell. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated reading in the first place. On the liquidity side, 21.4% of liquidity is locked until 16 November 2026 and 62.9% has been burned, both of which reduce (but do not eliminate) the risk of liquidity being pulled. Separately, the top 10 holders control 92.9% of total supply — a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could materially affect the market by selling.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This check reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate who is behind the project, whether the team is anonymous or doxxed, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether there is a working product, or whether any claims made in marketing materials are accurate. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or undisclosed intentions, and conversely a lower mechanical score doesn't by itself mean wrongdoing. No human has reviewed this token; the result is generated entirely by automated analysis of the contract and on-chain data as of the check date, and conditions such as locks, taxes or holder distribution can change afterwards.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, reading the liquidity lock contract directly on PinkLock to confirm the terms and unlock date, searching for independent discussion of the project's team and roadmap, and checking whether the tax rate or contract ownership can be changed by the owner in ways not flagged here. Treat this score as one input among several, not a conclusion.
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.