| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract bytecode | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 28 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x37438f…2e567d |
| Holders | 28 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x37438f…2e567d | 99.98% |
| #2 | 0xbff53d…0d8993 | 0.00% |
| #3 | 0xa2811b…56fa58 | 0.00% |
| #4 | 0x9b38df…78fdb8 | 0.00% |
| #5 | 0x61c6d0…27cc1f | 0.00% |
This automated check of FomoCoin on BSC returned a score of 0 out of 10, which reflects several findings that are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes blacklisting functionality, meaning whoever controls it can block specific wallet addresses from transacting with the token — in practice, this could be used to prevent a particular holder from selling or moving their tokens at all. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, which means the check could only examine the raw bytecode rather than readable code, limiting how much could be confirmed about other functions such as minting, pausing transfers, or proxy upgrades — these all returned "no data" because they could not be reliably assessed. Top-10 wallets hold 100% of the supply across only 28 holders total, indicating extremely high concentration: a small number of addresses could move or sell large portions of supply at once. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading liquidity is free to withdraw it at any time, which can sharply reduce or eliminate the ability to sell at a reasonable price. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of this check — the simulation found the token sellable with 0% buy and sell tax — but this reflects conditions on the day of testing only and can change if the contract owner alters permissions later.
It is important to understand what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only: it looks at code behaviour, permissions, and on-chain holder data. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a history, whether the tokenomics make long-term sense, whether any legal or regulatory structure exists, or what the creators' intentions are. A contract can show no dangerous flags and still be part of a project with no real activity, while a contract with flags like these does not necessarily mean harmful intent — but the permissions are there, and that fact alone carries risk regardless of intent.
Before considering any financial decision, it would be worth independently verifying the contract source code directly, checking whether liquidity lock details are confirmed through a third-party locker service, reviewing the distribution and transaction history of the top holder wallets on a block explorer, and researching the team or project's public presence and history. Given that liquidity is unlocked and blacklisting is enabled, extra caution in interpreting any of these findings as reassurance would be warranted, since mechanics that look fine at one point in time can be changed afterwards by whoever holds administrative control.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.