| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Owner renounced — no one can call it | ChainSift simulation | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 59.8% | Holder distribution | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 113822 | Token contract | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x514df5…abf687 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 113,822 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x9a0c8f…7501d7 | 15.71% |
| #2 | 0x663044…d5a7ba | 8.16% |
| #3 · contract | 0x225d38…32086e | 7.12% |
| #4 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 5.95% |
| #5 · contract | 0x720d87…0ae7e3 | 5.48% |
This automated check looked at the 1INCH contract's code and current on-chain state, and scored it 14 out of 18. In practical terms: the contract does include a mint function, which would normally let the owner create new tokens and dilute existing holders, but ownership has been renounced, so as of this check no address retains the ability to call it. There is no pause function present, meaning no one can freeze transfers, and no blacklist mechanism was detected, so no address appears able to block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not upgradeable, so its core logic cannot be swapped out later. Buy and sell tax are both 0%, and a transfer simulation found the token sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. One point worth noting on its own: top-10 wallets hold 59.7% of supply, which is a meaningful concentration — if those holders sell in size, it can affect price regardless of the contract's mechanics.
What this does not tell you is whether the people behind 1INCH are trustworthy, whether its tokenomics or emission schedule make sense, whether it has any legal or regulatory exposure, or what the team's intentions are. This check only reads what the smart contract can technically do to holders — it has no way to assess the humans running the project, off-chain agreements, or future decisions that haven't been coded into the contract. A contract with no scary technical flags can still be attached to a project that underperforms or is mismanaged, and a few favourable automated results are not a judgement on the project as a whole.
Liquidity not being locked is flagged mainly because, for most large, established tokens, liquidity is distributed across many independent providers rather than held by one party who could pull it — which appears to be the case here, with 94 providers in the main pool. That's a different risk profile from a brand-new token where a single wallet controls the pool and could remove it unilaterally.
Before putting money in, it's worth checking the project's own website and documentation for information on the team, token distribution and vesting schedules, looking at whether the top holders are exchanges, treasury wallets or known entities rather than anonymous individuals, checking trading volume and liquidity depth on the specific pools you'd be using, and reviewing any independent audits that may have been published. None of this automated check substitutes for that research, and none of it constitutes financial advice.
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.