| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 15.5% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100%, end date unknown | LP holders · TeamFinance | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1079 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x8e5383…d42eb6 |
| Holders | 1,079 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x478017…509859 | 1.90% |
| #2 | 0x9f8e0d…ffec89 | 1.87% |
| #3 | 0xd8eb0c…498525 | 1.60% |
| #4 | 0x55a310…75b222 | 1.60% |
| #5 | 0x909e17…228a2a | 1.55% |
This automated check looked at the contract mechanics behind evmbot and did not detect several behaviours that commonly let a token owner disadvantage holders after purchase. No admin mint function was found, meaning no mechanism was detected that would let the contract owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute existing holders. No transfer-pausing function was detected, so no code path was found that would let the owner freeze trading at will. No address blacklist capability was found, which means no mechanism was detected that would let specific wallets be blocked from selling. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped for different code after the fact without deploying a new contract entirely. A transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, with buy and sell tax both reading 0% from the contract at the time of the check. Liquidity shows as 100% locked, though the lock's end date could not be determined, so it was not possible to confirm when that liquidity could become unlockable. Top-10 wallets hold 15.5% of supply, which is on the lower end of concentration seen across tokens generally.
None of this tells you anything about who is behind the project, whether the team has a history worth trusting, how the token's supply and incentives are structured, or whether there is any legal entity standing behind it. A perfect score on contract mechanics reflects the absence of certain code-level red flags on the day of the check; it says nothing about intent, roadmap credibility, marketing claims, or whether the people controlling the deployer wallet or the liquidity lock will behave as the lock terms suggest. Ownership of the contract itself (whether it has been renounced or still sits with a live wallet) was not listed here and is worth confirming separately, since an owner address with no mint or pause function can still potentially hold other privileges depending on the exact code.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking up the deployer wallet's transaction history and other tokens it has launched, checking whether contract ownership has been renounced or who currently holds it, confirming the actual unlock date of the locked liquidity directly on the locker platform (TeamFinance in this case) rather than relying on "locked" alone, and searching for any independent discussion of the team or project outside of its own channels. Checking holder distribution over time, rather than at a single snapshot, can also show whether concentration is rising or falling. None of these steps are guarantees, but they fill in the parts of the picture that a contract-mechanics check cannot see.
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.