| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not found | Implementation code | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Proxy contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 66.7% | Holder distribution | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 54 | Token contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xac1b5d…d54c69 |
| Current code | 0xcee532…af78d9 |
| Holders | 54 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xac1b5d…d54c69 | 16.84% |
| #2 · PancakeV2 · contract | 0x31231f…d94f50 | 9.89% |
| #3 | 0xd92229…69e9e1 | 5.00% |
| #4 | 0xd8ad55…26ac04 | 5.00% |
| #5 | 0xc1d8ec…b910e0 | 5.00% |
This automated check looked at OMNUS's contract code and on-chain data on BNB Chain, and scored it 13 out of 18. Here is what the findings actually mean for someone holding the token. The contract is built as an upgradeable proxy, which means the logic behind it can be swapped out by whoever controls the admin keys — in practice, the rules that govern transfers, taxes, or other behaviour could change after you buy, even if today's version looks straightforward. Top-10 wallets hold 66.7% of the supply, a concentration level that means a small number of addresses could sell a large portion of supply at once, which can affect the price significantly. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected: the simulation showed the token is currently sellable, with 0% buy and sell tax, and no admin mint, transfer-pause, or blacklist functions were found in the implementation code as it stands today. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code is publicly readable. Liquidity is not locked, however, which means whoever provided the trading pool could withdraw it, potentially leaving buyers unable to trade the token on that pool.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the project, how tokens are distributed or vested, whether there's a working product, marketing claims, legal structure, or the team's intentions. A clean mechanical read says nothing about whether the people controlling the upgradeable logic or the unlocked liquidity intend to use that control responsibly, and it cannot detect intent at all.
Before putting any money in, it would be sensible to look into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, to check whether the liquidity pool has any lock history on a platform like a token locker service, to look for a public team identity or audit beyond automated scanning, and to check the project's own communications about what the upgradeable proxy is for and who holds its admin key. Given liquidity is unlocked and the owner retains the ability to change contract logic, it's also worth monitoring whether these conditions change before deciding how to proceed. None of this replaces independent research into the project's background and documentation.
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.