| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 51.9% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 855338 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xce7a79…7ba824 |
| Current owner | 0xce7a79…7ba824 |
| Holders | 855,338 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xaa1c85…677c5e | 11.00% |
| #2 | 0xa87cac…4aee9c | 9.97% |
| #3 | 0xbd25a9…520da0 | 6.66% |
| #4 | 0xb8abaa…e5b671 | 5.66% |
| #5 | 0x5c58b8…2e9a94 | 4.95% |
This automated check scanned the contract code for 币安日记 on BSC and returned a score of 11 out of 18. Here is what the individual findings mean in practical terms. The contract's owner can mint new tokens at will, which means the circulating supply can be increased at any time, diluting existing holders' share of the token. Blacklisting is enabled, which means the contract has a built-in function allowing an address (typically the owner or a designated admin) to block specific wallets from transferring or selling their tokens. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, potentially leaving holders unable to sell at a meaningful price. On the more reassuring side, no honeypot behaviour was detected in this test: a simulated transfer showed the token can currently be sold, and buy/sell tax was recorded at 0% at the time of the check. The top 10 wallets hold 51.9% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could move the market significantly if they sold. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code is at least publicly readable, though that alone doesn't change what the functions above allow.
What this check does not tell you is just as important. It reads contract mechanics only — it has no view into who is behind the project, how the team plans to use the admin functions it holds, what the token is actually for, whether there's a working product, or whether any marketing claims are accurate. A contract can look mechanically similar to thousands of others and still carry very different real-world intent behind it. No part of this process involved a human reviewing the project, its website, its social channels, or its team; it is fully automated and limited to what is readable on-chain as of the date of this check.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who holds admin control of this contract and whether that control sits with a multisig or a single wallet, since mint and blacklist functions being enabled matters a great deal depending on who can trigger them. It's also worth checking the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see whether it's genuinely unlocked and who owns the LP tokens, since that determines how easily liquidity could be pulled. Looking at the holder list to see whether the top wallets are exchanges, team wallets, or unrelated individuals will give more context to that 51.9% concentration figure. Finally, checking for any independent audit, reading the project's own documentation, and verifying the team's identity or track record through sources outside this contract are all steps that fall outside what an on-chain mechanics check can cover.
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.