| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 3.8% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 474 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbf7707…21a6c3 |
| Holders | 474 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xbf7707…21a6c3 | 0.88% |
| #2 | 0x4f0c3c…5658f1 | 0.34% |
| #3 | 0x8df71c…3c90ef | 0.34% |
| #4 | 0xda2992…f132a7 | 0.32% |
| #5 | 0x0c8acc…b856fd | 0.32% |
This automated check scored HaxAI 0 out of 18, and the reason is decisive: ChainSift's simulation found that selling is blocked by the contract. In practice, this means a wallet can buy the token but cannot convert it back out — a pattern known as a honeypot. Whatever else is true about the token, this single finding is enough to zero the score, because the ability to exit a position is the most basic thing a check like this looks for. Alongside this, the contract's source code is not verified, meaning only compiled bytecode is visible rather than human-readable logic, so several mechanics — including whether the owner can mint new tokens, pause transfers, or blacklist addresses — show as "no data" simply because they cannot be confirmed either way. Liquidity is also not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it at any time, separate from the selling restriction already detected. Top-10 holder concentration, at 3.8%, is on the lower end and was not flagged here, but this detail is largely academic when the core sell function itself does not work as expected.
It is worth being clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics only: the code's behaviour, taxes, transfer restrictions, verification status, and liquidity setup. It says nothing about who is behind the project, what they intend to do with it, whether marketing claims match reality, whether the tokenomics make sense, or whether any legal structure exists. A contract can show no honeypot behaviour and still be attached to a team with no accountability, and conversely a verified, well-structured contract can still sit behind a project with no real plan. None of that is assessed by this tool, and no human has reviewed this token — the result above is generated entirely by automated analysis.
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. If you want to understand more before deciding anything, look at the contract code directly on the block explorer once (or if) it becomes verified, check whether the liquidity pool address has any lock or vesting attached, look at who holds admin or owner privileges on the contract, and search for any independent commentary on the project's team or history outside of its own marketing. Treat the absence of other flags here as "not detected on the date of this check," not as confirmation that those risks don't exist.
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.