| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 64.3% | Holder distribution | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 10686 | Token contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x004fe3…313099 |
| Holders | 10,686 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xe554dc…989d62 | 23.18% |
| #2 · contract | 0x3b4d79…cf5ca7 | 15.23% |
| #3 | 0xa9f5be…5e44e8 | 5.89% |
| #4 | 0x47fa2a…fab2d6 | 5.12% |
| #5 | 0xe5fd74…66fa59 | 4.24% |
This automated check scored LIT 14 out of 18 on contract mechanics for Ethereum. In plain terms, the findings show a transfer simulation completed successfully, meaning the token could be sold at the time of the check, and buy/sell tax was recorded at 0%, so no hidden fee was detected on a trade. No admin mint function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, and no address blacklist capability were detected in the contract, which means that, as of this check, the contract owner does not appear to hold the ability to freeze a wallet, block a sale, or create new tokens out of thin air to dilute holders. The contract is also not upgradeable via a proxy, meaning its core logic cannot be silently swapped out later, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic behind these findings can be independently read by anyone. The two points worth sitting with are that the top 10 holders control 64.3% of supply, meaning a small number of wallets could influence the market if they chose to sell, and that liquidity is not locked, though it is spread across roughly 40 providers in the main pool rather than concentrated in one or two wallets, which is a different risk profile from a single party holding the ability to pull liquidity alone.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate the team behind the project, their track record, the token's economic design, any legal structure, marketing claims, or intent. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals, concentrated future unlocks, or undisclosed arrangements that no amount of code-reading will reveal. No human has reviewed this token; the result reflects an automated scan of the deployed contract on the date shown.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who the team is and whether they're publicly identifiable, checking whether there's a published token allocation or vesting schedule that explains the holder concentration, looking at the liquidity pool directly to see how it's distributed among those 40-odd providers and whether any single one could withdraw a large share, and searching for independent discussion of the project outside its own channels. Re-running this same contract check periodically is also sensible, since contract permissions, holder distribution, and liquidity conditions can all change after the fact.
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.