| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x9c9cb4…f3d658 |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 100.00% |
| #2 | 0x9c9cb4…f3d658 | 0.00% |
This automated check looked at the ELON2028 contract's code and current on-chain state, and found that a sale simulation went through without being blocked, buy and sell tax are both set to 0%, and no admin minting, pausing, blacklisting, or proxy-upgrade functions were detected in the contract at the time of the check. That means, based on what's visible today, the contract owner does not appear to hold the ability to freeze your tokens, charge a hidden toll on trades, print new supply out of thin air, or swap in new contract logic later. Liquidity being reported as 100% burned also suggests the pool backing the token cannot easily be pulled out from under it by whoever created it. None of this means those things are impossible going forward — it means they were not detected as present in the contract on this date.
What this check cannot tell you is who is behind the project, what they intend to do with it, or whether the numbers around it make sense. The holder distribution here is a clear case in point: the top 10 wallets hold 100% of supply, and the contract itself only shows 2 holders. That is an extremely concentrated ownership structure — in practice, it means one or two wallets could sell a large portion of the circulating supply at once, which a contract-mechanics check like this one does not score as a "flag" in the same way a honeypot or mint function would, but is a material risk in its own right. This check also says nothing about the team's identity, any roadmap or whitepaper claims, marketing conduct, or legal status — those sit entirely outside what reading contract code can tell you.
Before putting any money toward this token, it would be worth looking at the actual wallet addresses behind that top-10 concentration on a block explorer, to see whether they look like a team/treasury, an exchange, or unrelated individual holders, and whether any have moved funds recently. It's also worth checking whether liquidity lock claims can be independently verified on a lock-checking service rather than taken at face value, looking at trading volume and age of the pool, and searching for any independent commentary or audits of the project outside of its own channels. None of the above should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid this token — it is a summary of what an automated reading of the contract did and did not find on the date of this 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.