| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | 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 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 0 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0f7add…38b9a5 |
| Current owner | 0x0f7add…38b9a5 |
This automated check scanned the TEC (TCASH) contract on BSC and found that a test transfer could be completed, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check — the contract did not block a sale in simulation. The buy tax reads at 0%, though sell tax data was not available, so the actual cost of exiting a position cannot be confirmed from this check alone. More importantly, the contract owner retains the ability to pause transfers entirely. In practice, this means that at any point, the owner could freeze the token so that nobody — including you — is able to send or sell it, regardless of what the market price shows. No minting function, blacklist capability, or upgradeable proxy was detected, which limits some other ways an owner could alter balances or logic after the fact. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code is publicly readable and matches what is deployed, though verification alone does not mean the code is free of owner-controlled risk.
One finding here needs particular weight: liquidity is not locked. This means whoever controls the liquidity pool could remove it at any time, which can sharply reduce the ability to sell at any meaningful price even if the contract itself permits transfers. Combined with a pausable transfer function, this represents two separate mechanisms by which access to funds could be restricted or value removed, independent of each other.
What this check does not tell you is just as important as what it does. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it says nothing about who the team is, whether they are identifiable or anonymous, how tokens are distributed among holders, what the project claims to do, or whether any representations made about it are accurate. A score based on contract behaviour is not an assessment of intent, competence, or honesty. The holder count returned as 0 also suggests this token may be very new or thinly distributed, which independently affects how meaningful any of these findings are in practice.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth looking at the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who holds the LP tokens and whether that address has a history of removing liquidity. It's also worth searching for the project's social channels, team identity, and any audit reports, and checking whether the pause function has been exercised before on past transactions. None of these steps confirm safety, but they fill in context that a contract-only scan cannot provide.
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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.