| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 66% | Holder distribution | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 64249 | Token contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xc3e06e…5bc348 |
| Current owner | 0x59a0f9…d7b596 |
| Holders | 64,249 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xaee036…680e57 | 17.50% |
| #2 · contract | 0x59a0f9…d7b596 | 11.83% |
| #3 · contract | 0x938ced…3c77f7 | 8.75% |
| #4 · contract | 0x5b5442…be7d93 | 8.75% |
| #5 · contract | 0x470458…001113 | 8.20% |
This automated check scored WLD 12 out of 18 on contract mechanics for the address checked on Ethereum. The most significant finding is that the contract owner retains the ability to mint new tokens at will, which means the circulating supply can be increased at the owner's discretion, potentially diluting the value of existing holdings. Top-10 wallets were found to hold 66.4% of supply, which is a high concentration — if any of these addresses sell in size, it could affect the market meaningfully, though holding a large balance is not by itself evidence of intent to sell. Liquidity was found to be unlocked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens could, in principle, withdraw liquidity from the trading pair. On the positive side of contract mechanics, the source code is verified on the block explorer (so anyone can read what the contract actually does), transfer simulation showed the token can be bought and sold, buy and sell tax are both 0%, and no pausable-transfer or blacklist functions were detected in the contract as it stands.
It's important to understand the limits of this check. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not know who the team behind WLD is, what their track record is, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there are legal agreements or disclosures, or what the long-term intentions of large holders are. A token can score well here and still carry risks this check cannot see, such as concentrated off-chain control, planned unlocks, or governance decisions made by a small group. No human has reviewed this specific contract; the results come entirely from automated analysis of the code and current holder data.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who currently holds owner or admin privileges on this contract and whether that control sits with a multisig, a DAO, or a single wallet. It's also worth checking whether the top holders are known entities (exchanges, treasury, foundation wallets) rather than anonymous addresses, since concentration reads very differently depending on who holds the tokens. Look for any public statements or documentation about mint policy — is there a supply cap, and under what conditions would new tokens be issued? Since liquidity isn't locked, check which pools you'd actually be trading against and who controls them. Finally, treat this score as one input among several, not a verdict, and re-run checks periodically since contract permissions and holder distribution can change over time.
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.