| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 61 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0c5401…f50b36 |
| Current owner | 0x456dd0…6b67a4 |
| Holders | 61 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x456dd0…6b67a4 | 99.99% |
| #2 | 0x3176f5…592d8f | 0.00% |
| #3 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 0.00% |
| #4 | 0xbe0dcc…626881 | 0.00% |
| #5 | 0xad512e…8b2c8e | 0.00% |
This automated check on UP (Unitas) returned a score of 12 out of 18. In practical terms, the contract mechanics that were examined did not reveal an admin mint function, a transfer pause switch, an address blacklist facility, or an upgradeable proxy pattern — meaning that, as of this check, the contract owner does not appear to hold the power to mint new tokens at will, freeze transfers, block specific wallets from trading, or swap in new contract logic after the fact. A test transfer also executed successfully with no buy or sell tax detected, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, so anyone can read what the contract actually does rather than relying on a compiled blob. The two findings that pull the score down are concrete: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it at any time, and the top 10 holders control the entire supply, which is an extreme concentration that leaves the token's price highly exposed to the decisions of a very small number of wallets.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract code and on-chain data only — it has not been reviewed by a person, and it says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team is identifiable or has a track record, how the tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached to the token, or what the team's actual intentions are. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be part of a project with no real utility, no transparency, or plans that don't match marketing claims. None of the findings above should be read as a statement that the token is safe, legitimate, or free of risk — they only describe what was and wasn't detected in the contract itself on the date of this check.
Given the unlocked liquidity and the concentration among 60 holders, it would be reasonable to look up the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who holds the LP tokens and whether there's any lock contract involved, to look at the wallet addresses holding the top 10 positions and see whether they're linked to exchanges, the project team, or appear to be unrelated individual holders, and to search independently for any public information about who runs the project, whether they've published an audit, and whether the same wallets have been associated with other tokens before. None of this replaces independent judgement or professional financial advice.
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.