| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 89.3% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 348 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x45dbb4…bdb17b |
| Holders | 348 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · PancakeV3 · contract | 0x68fbdf…2fa0de | 55.86% |
| #2 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x28e2ea…e9e9df | 13.97% |
| #3 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 10.56% |
| #4 · contract | 0x5f9bc3…bf0718 | 1.42% |
| #5 | 0x3d5a78…a49ff6 | 1.40% |
This automated check looked at the DOCK contract on BSC and found a score of 13 out of 18. In practical terms, the simulation showed the token can currently be sold, with no buy or sell tax detected, and no admin mint function, pause switch, blacklist capability, or upgradeable proxy were found in the contract at the time of the check. That means, based on what the code allows, the contract owner does not appear to hold the ability to mint new tokens, freeze transfers, block specific wallets, or swap in new contract logic later. The contract source is also verified on the block explorer, which means the published code can be read and checked by anyone, rather than being a black box. Two points stand out as higher risk: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could remove it at any time, leaving holders unable to sell at a reasonable price even without any malicious code; and the top 10 wallets hold 89.3% of the total supply, which is a high concentration that means a small number of holders could move the market significantly if they sold.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether there is a legal entity attached, or what the stated intentions of the creators are. No human has reviewed this project, and a clean mechanical read says nothing about whether the people running it intend to act in holders' interests.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at a few concrete things this check can't tell you: who holds the liquidity pool tokens and whether there's any lock or vesting schedule attached to them; whether the top holder wallets are known exchange or team addresses rather than independent buyers; whether the project has any public team identity, audit from a third party, or active community presence; and how the liquidity pool size compares to the market cap, since thin liquidity can make prices swing heavily on small trades. None of this replaces independent research, and this check should be treated as one input, 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.