| 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 | Enabled | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 57.4% | Holder distribution | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 21055 | Token contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 28 Mar 2023 — 1,260 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x341d68…ed79be |
| Deployed by | 0x702099…782fc2 |
| Current owner | 0xc9d3b7…6b000b |
| Holders | 21,055 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xcf5ad1…1a401a | 13.42% |
| #2 | 0x6a0b36…c12b52 | 12.61% |
| #3 | 0xf97781…41acec | 6.39% |
| #4 | 0xc82cdd…92bb87 | 5.38% |
| #5 | 0xad60c7…f2f614 | 5.26% |
This automated check scored this contract 12 out of 18 on the mechanics it examined. A few of the findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes an admin mint function, which means whoever controls the owner address can create new tokens at will and increase total supply — this can dilute existing holders' share of the token without their consent. Top-10 wallets were found to hold 57.4% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of addresses could move large amounts of tokens in a way that affects the market, whether through coordinated selling or simple large transactions. Liquidity was found not to be locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens could withdraw the paired assets from the trading pool at any time, potentially leaving buyers unable to sell. On the positive side, the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning its logic can be publicly read rather than hidden, and no buy or sell tax, no transfer-pausing function, no blacklist function, and no upgradeable proxy pattern were detected as of the date of this check. A transfer simulation also indicated the token was sellable.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it looks at what the contract mechanically allows an owner or admin address to do. It says nothing about who is actually behind the project, whether the team has a history of delivering, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether there's a registered legal entity behind it, or what the stated or actual intentions of the people controlling the admin keys are. No human has reviewed this token or its surrounding project for this check.
Given the findings above, someone considering this token might look further into who holds the owner and admin keys and whether those keys sit behind a multisig or timelock, since that affects how the mint function or other admin controls could realistically be used. Checking whether the liquidity pool address is controlled by a known team wallet, an exchange, or a locked contract elsewhere would also help clarify the liquidity risk noted here. Reviewing the distribution of the top holder wallets individually — for example, whether they are exchange addresses, team wallets, or unrelated individual holders — would add useful context to the concentration figure. Independent research into the project's public team, documentation, audit history, and community discussion is also a reasonable next step, since none of that falls within the scope of this contract-mechanics check.
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.