| 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 | Yes | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 87.5% | Holder distribution | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 590 | Token contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 31 Mar 2026 — 160 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x1dd626…0f48f2 |
| Deployed by | 0x986868…6579b2 |
| Holders | 590 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xe7761a…e2cf78 | 64.12% |
| #2 · UniswapV3 | 0x155738…400127 | 12.68% |
| #3 | 0xeea006…06ed5d | 3.14% |
| #4 | 0x218193…8fe3d3 | 1.86% |
| #5 | 0xeacf48…389e0e | 1.37% |
This automated check scanned CHIP's contract code and current on-chain data; it did not involve any human review. A score of 12 out of 18 reflects a mix of detected and non-detected risk indicators, not a pass/fail grade. Here is what each finding means in practical terms. The contract uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, which means the code that governs how the token behaves can be swapped out after the fact by whoever controls the upgrade function — rules that apply today, including the 0% buy and sell tax currently in effect, are not guaranteed to stay that way, since a future logic update could change transfer conditions, fees, or other mechanics without needing a new token address. Top-10 wallets holding 87.5% of supply means a small number of addresses could sell in size and move the price, or coordinate in ways that affect liquidity depth. Liquidity not being locked means whoever provided the trading pool's liquidity retains the ability to withdraw it, which would impair or halt trading on that pool. On the more reassuring side, no admin mint function, no pause mechanism, and no blacklist capability were detected on the date of this check, and source code being verified on the explorer means the deployed bytecode can be matched to readable code, which supports transparency but does not by itself confirm intent.
What this check does not tell you is just as important. It reads contract mechanics and current holder and liquidity data only — it says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team is doxxed or anonymous, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached to the token, or what the stated purpose and roadmap actually are. A contract can show no detected red flags today and still be paired with weak tokenomics, an inactive team, or misleading marketing, none of which this check evaluates.
Before putting money in, consider looking up who controls the upgrade admin key and whether it sits behind a multisig or timelock, checking the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who owns the LP tokens and whether they can be withdrawn unilaterally, reviewing the holder list for wallet labels or links to the deployer, and searching independently for the team's identity, whitepaper, and any prior projects. Findings here reflect only what was detected on the date of this check; contract logic and holder concentration can both change afterward.
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.