Before you buy: How much real money is in the pool, what do you lose selling $1,000, and who can pull it out?
| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Holders | 48 | Token contract | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x4c1c3b…a2d74a |
| Holders | 48 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x4c1c3b…a2d74a | 100.00% |
| #2 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 100.00% |
| #3 | 0x24924e…d31c37 | 4.43% |
| #4 | 0xcd1140…4655c1 | 4.16% |
| #5 | 0xefee87…bde6d8 | 3.92% |
This automated check looked at how the DACITY contract actually behaves on-chain, not at who runs it or whether it's a good investment. A transfer simulation found that tokens can be sold, with no buy or sell tax detected at the time of the check, meaning the contract did not route a cut of transactions to a fee wallet. No admin mint function was detected, which means there is no code path found that would let the contract owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the owner does not appear to have a built-in switch to freeze everyone's transfers. No blacklist mechanism was detected, meaning there's no code found that would let an address be individually blocked from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, which matters because proxy contracts can have their entire logic swapped out after launch — here, what you see in the verified source is what should keep running. The source code itself is verified on the block explorer, so the actual logic is publicly readable rather than hidden behind an unverified bytecode blob.
None of this tells you who built DACITY, whether the team has doxxed identities, how tokens are distributed among the team versus the public, what the roadmap or utility claims are, or whether there's a functioning business behind it. A clean set of contract mechanics does not speak to tokenomics design, marketing practices, or legal compliance — a token can have zero exploitable code functions and still carry high concentration or project risk. Worth noting here: with only 48 holders, this is an early-stage or thinly distributed token, and on-chain mechanics being clear doesn't offset that concentration risk.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who holds the largest wallets and what share of supply they control, since a small number of large holders can move price sharply regardless of tax settings. Check whether liquidity is locked and for how long, since unlocked liquidity can be pulled by whoever controls it. Look into the team's public presence, any audit beyond this automated check, and community activity on independent channels rather than official ones only. Also check whether the contract owner still holds any privileged role (owner-only functions beyond what's listed here can exist even without mint, pause, or blacklist), since renounced ownership versus active control changes the risk picture considerably.
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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.