| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 6.3% | Holder distribution | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Holders | 307 | Token contract | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x9b893d…cd486b |
| Holders | 307 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x9b893d…cd486b | 0.85% |
| #2 | 0x75b1d2…5be2a4 | 0.61% |
| #3 | 0xe66b1e…e1e395 | 0.61% |
| #4 | 0xcccb37…357dbc | 0.60% |
| #5 | 0x2cae83…79bff5 | 0.60% |
This automated check ran a simulated sell on VOLT (VOLT FINANCE) and found that selling is blocked by the contract — this is what's known as honeypot behaviour. In practice, this means that whatever conditions the contract imposes, wallets attempting to sell this token are prevented from doing so, regardless of slippage, gas, or timing. Because the contract's source code is not verified (only the raw bytecode is visible on-chain), several other mechanics — whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, blacklist addresses, or upgrade the contract — could not be read and are marked as no data. Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it at will. Together, these findings mean the contract owner (or whoever holds the relevant permissions) has significant latitude over how this token behaves, and holders have been found, at the time of this check, to have no working exit through a sale.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess the team behind VOLT, their intentions, the project's tokenomics, marketing claims, or any legal structure. A low or zero score reflects what the contract's code and on-chain data show today, not a judgement on the people running it or what they plan to do next. Top-10 holder concentration here is 6.3%, which is relatively distributed, but this figure says nothing about whether those wallets are independent holders or linked accounts, and it doesn't offset the selling restriction found above.
Given that selling has been found to be blocked, there is no sell amount — small or large — that would allow funds to be retrieved from this contract once committed. For that reason, this is not a case where a small test transaction would clarify anything: if the contract blocks sells, a test buy would simply add money to a position that cannot currently be exited. Anyone researching this token further should look at the raw contract code directly if possible, check whether the deployer wallet has a history of similar tokens, look at how liquidity was added and by whom, and review any public communication from the project team addressing the lack of source verification and the locked-liquidity status. These steps don't replace the missing data points here, but they provide more context than the contract mechanics alone can offer.
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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.