| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 59% | Holder distribution | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1658 | Token contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 17 Jun 2025 — 448 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0xe50f72…24c3c4 |
| Deployed by | 0xb5b011…358fd8 |
| Current owner | 0x70ae25…a2192c |
| Holders | 1,658 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV3 | 0x406803…62bd59 | 18.81% |
| #2 | 0x0d565f…4e4c11 | 17.53% |
| #3 | 0xe8c060…38a2e5 | 7.34% |
| #4 | 0x1d425d…b0549b | 4.13% |
| #5 | 0x6159af…59cbb1 | 2.80% |
This automated check on ICP's Ethereum contract found no honeypot behaviour in transfer simulations, meaning tokens could be sold at the time of the test. Buy and sell tax were both read as 0% directly from the contract code. No admin mint function was detected, which would otherwise let the contract owner create new tokens and dilute existing holders. No pause function was detected, so there is no built-in mechanism found that would let an owner freeze transfers. No address blacklist function was detected, meaning no code was found that would let an owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic was not found to be replaceable after deployment. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the actual logic behind the contract can be read and checked by anyone, rather than being hidden. Two points do stand out: the top 10 holders control 59% of supply, which is a concentration level where large wallets moving in or out can affect price significantly, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, which could affect the ability to sell at a given price.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. Everything above comes from reading the contract's code and current on-chain data — it does not assess who is behind the project, how tokens are distributed or vested among the team, whether marketing claims match reality, or whether there is any legal entity accountable for the project. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still carry risks tied to team conduct, off-chain promises, or business fundamentals that no contract scan can see. This is an automated result generated on the date of the check; no person reviewed this token or its findings.
Before deciding anything, it's worth looking at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking whether liquidity is genuinely locked or held by a multisig with a public timelock, reading whatever documentation or audit reports the project has published, and checking independently whether ICP trading on Ethereum is an official bridged or wrapped representation of the asset rather than the native Internet Computer token, since naming alone does not confirm that. Cross-checking holder count and concentration trends over time, rather than a single snapshot, can also give a fuller picture than this one-time check provides.
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.