| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 12 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x1cfd6a…586e1e |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x1cfd6a…586e1e | 99.10% |
| #2 | 0x7623ee…08b045 | 0.90% |
This automated check looked at the KII contract on BSC and scored it 11 out of 18 on the mechanics it can detect. Three findings stand out. First, the contract uses an upgradeable proxy, which means the code that actually governs how the token behaves can be swapped out by whoever controls the upgrade function — rules that apply today, including tax, transfer limits, or minting, could be changed tomorrow without your holdings moving to a new address. Second, the top 10 holders control 100% of the supply, and the check found only two holders in total. That is an extreme concentration: a very small number of wallets hold effectively all the tokens, so decisions by one or two addresses could move the market significantly. Third, the contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable and matches what is deployed — a basic transparency signal, not a judgement on what that code does. On the positive side, no admin mint, no pause function, and no address blacklist were detected on the date of this check, and a transfer simulation found the token sellable. Buy and sell tax data was not available.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — no person has reviewed this token, and nothing here assesses the team behind it, how tokens were allocated or vested, the project's stated purpose, its marketing claims, or whether any of it complies with the law where you live. A contract can pass every mechanical check and still be tied to a team with no track record, a token supply designed to benefit insiders, or a business model that doesn't hold up. None of that is visible from bytecode alone, and the absence of a flag only means that specific behaviour was not detected on the date of the check — it is not a guarantee about the future.
Before putting money in, it is worth digging into who holds the other tokens and what their history looks like, since two wallets holding all supply is unusual and worth understanding rather than assuming. Look for whoever controls the upgrade function on the proxy — is it a multisig, a single wallet, a timelock, or unknown? Check whether the project has published audits from an independent security firm, read the tokenomics and vesting schedule if available, and search for any public information about the team's identity and prior projects. Treat this score as one input among several, not a verdict.
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.