| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not found | Implementation code | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not found | Implementation code | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — a single wallet can replace the code | Proxy contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 23.9% | Holder distribution | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 4736 | Token contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbb145c…9cf1c5 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0xbb145c…9cf1c5 — a single wallet |
| Current code | 0xddb5a5…486f81 |
| Holders | 4,736 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 5.81% |
| #2 · contract | 0x63b9a3…0a2cef | 2.95% |
| #3 | 0x1c57ac…500fb9 | 2.61% |
| #4 · contract | 0x9d42ce…53b7ed | 2.11% |
| #5 · contract | 0x44e420…59d308 | 2.04% |
This automated check looked at CLAUS's contract mechanics on Ethereum and found an overall score of 16 out of 18, with four points worth understanding before anything else. The contract is set up as an upgradeable proxy, which means a single wallet holds the ability to replace the underlying code entirely — not just tweak a parameter, but swap in new logic altogether, including the very protections (no mint function, no pause, no blacklist) that currently look reassuring. As of the date of this check, no admin mint, transfer-pausing, or blacklist functions were found in the implementation code, and a simulated sell transaction went through without issue, with 0% buy and sell tax recorded in the contract. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated reading in the first place. On the less reassuring side, liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it at any time, and the top 10 holders together control 23.9% of the supply — a concentration level worth factoring into any view of how the token might trade.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it has no view into who the team behind CLAUS actually is, what their track record looks like, how tokens were allocated or vested, what the project's stated purpose or roadmap is, or whether any of it complies with the regulations of wherever you happen to live. None of that is assessed here, and no human has reviewed this token or vouched for it in any way. A high score on contract mechanics says nothing about intent.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking at who holds the upgrade key and whether it sits behind a multisig or timelock rather than a single private key, since that one wallet currently has the power to change everything else about this contract. It's also worth checking whether the liquidity pool is locked or owned by a traceable, reputable address, looking at the holder distribution beyond the top 10 to see how concentrated things really are, and searching independently for information on the team, any audits beyond this automated scan, and community discussion of the project's history and conduct.
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.