| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 44.7% | Holder distribution | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 277521 | Token contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa66d83…68fb3d |
| Current owner | 0xa66d83…68fb3d |
| Holders | 277,521 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x67c231…5fed1b | 14.08% |
| #2 | 0xd23953…e32b4e | 5.87% |
| #3 · contract | 0x7a3abf…05c1ac | 5.39% |
| #4 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 5.28% |
| #5 · contract | 0xa3a90c…70af94 | 4.06% |
This automated check looked at the MANA contract on Ethereum and scored 13 out of 18 on the mechanics it tests for. Two findings are worth translating into plain terms. First, the contract owner can mint new tokens — this means the circulating supply can be increased at the owner's discretion, which can dilute the value of tokens already held. Second, transfers can be paused by the owner, meaning that under certain conditions the ability to send or sell the token could be temporarily switched off for all holders. Neither of these was found to be in active use at the time of the check, and no honeypot behaviour was detected: the simulation showed the token is sellable, with a 0% buy tax and 0% sell tax. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable and matches what is deployed, though verification does not by itself indicate how the owner's permissions have been or will be used. No address blacklist and no upgradeable proxy were detected as of the check date. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it; this is distinct from the token contract itself and should be read alongside holder concentration, which currently stands at 44.8% of supply held by the top 10 addresses.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, how the team is structured, whether any legal entity stands behind the token, the design or sustainability of its tokenomics, or the intent of those holding admin permissions. A high score here reflects an absence of certain detected mechanical red flags at the time of the scan; it is not a judgment on the project, the team, or future conduct, and findings can change if the contract's permissions are used differently later.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who holds the admin keys and whether they are controlled by a multisig or a single address, since this affects how easily the mint or pause functions could be exercised. It is also worth checking where the top-10 holder addresses sit — exchanges, team wallets, or the liquidity pool itself can all show up in that figure and mean different things. Looking at the liquidity pool directly, to see who can withdraw it and under what terms, and reviewing any public documentation, audits, or governance history from the project team, would add context this automated check cannot provide.
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.