| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 80.4% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% until 31 Oct 2027 | LP holders · PinkLock02 | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1384 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x7314cb…24a11b |
| Holders | 1,384 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x34f09a…6ac385 | 76.84% |
| #2 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x7f9951…df39db | 3.15% |
| #3 | 0xf97781…41acec | 0.05% |
| #4 | 0xefdca5…f2ae83 | 0.05% |
| #5 | 0xeb2d2f…c8a0bb | 0.05% |
This automated check gave FLAPAI a score of 0 out of 18, and the reason is decisive: ChainSift's simulation found that selling is blocked by the contract. In practice, this means that whatever amount of this token is bought, it cannot currently be converted back into BNB or another asset — the contract code itself prevents the sell transaction from completing. This pattern is commonly called a honeypot. Because selling is blocked, a low score here isn't a matter of degree; a token that can't be sold is treated as a failure on this check regardless of any other positive-looking signals, including the fact that no buy or sell tax was detected and that liquidity is reported as 100% locked until October 2027. A locked liquidity pool normally reduces the risk of the pool being drained, but it does nothing to change the fact that tokens sitting in a wallet cannot be sold if the contract itself won't allow it. On top of this, the contract source code is not verified on the block explorer, meaning the underlying logic cannot be independently read line by line — only raw bytecode is available, so claims about mint functions, pausable transfers, blacklisting, or upgradeability show as "no data" rather than "absent." The top 10 holders also control 80.4% of supply, which means a small number of wallets have outsized influence over what happens if trading mechanics were ever to change.
It's worth being clear about what this check does and doesn't cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it simulates transactions and inspects what the code allows the owner or the contract to do to a holder, such as blocking sales, changing taxes, minting new tokens, or freezing addresses. It says nothing about who the team is, whether their stated plans are realistic, whether the tokenomics make sense, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the team's intentions are. No human has reviewed this project, and absence of a flag in the evidence table means it was not detected on the date of the check, not that the capability is confirmed absent.
Given that selling is currently blocked, there is no safe way to test this with a small purchase — funds placed into a token that cannot be sold remain stuck regardless of the amount. Anyone wanting to understand this token further, rather than trade it, could look at whether the contract gets verified in future, monitor whether the sell restriction is ever lifted and under what conditions, and research the team's public identity, communications, and any independent commentary from other holders experiencing the same selling restriction.
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.