| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 49.5% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1841 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x2aaff9…ad6df6 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 1,841 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0x1dc8a7…672221 | 26.86% |
| #2 · contract | 0xc53742…dfe0d9 | 3.73% |
| #3 · contract | 0xdd2cae…a40226 | 3.72% |
| #4 | 0x0dd65d…d9ea3c | 3.36% |
| #5 · contract | 0x7abb1e…78bc79 | 3.00% |
This automated check looked at KIMCHI's contract code and current on-chain data, and found no evidence of several common mechanisms that owners use to control or restrict what holders can do with their tokens. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear to have a built-in way to create new tokens and dilute existing holders. Transfers are not pausable, so there is no detected switch that would let the owner freeze all token movement. No address blacklist function was found, which would otherwise allow specific wallets to be blocked from trading. The contract is not upgradeable, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out for different code after the fact. A transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, with both buy and sell tax set to 0% at the time of the check. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, which means the tokens representing the trading pool have been sent to an address no one controls, reducing (though not eliminating) one route for a sudden liquidity withdrawal. One point worth noting: the top 10 holders control 49.5% of total supply, which is a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could materially affect price if they sell in a short window.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — no person has reviewed this token, and nothing here speaks to who is behind the project, how tokens were distributed, what the roadmap or stated use case is, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached, or whether the team's intentions are sound. A clean contract-mechanics result is not a judgement on the people running the project or the broader economics of the token, and it does not rule out risks that live outside the code, such as off-chain promises, social media coordination, or future decisions by holders who control large portions of supply.
Before putting money into any token, it is worth independently checking who the team is and whether they're identifiable, looking at how the token's supply is scheduled to be distributed or unlocked over time, reviewing the project's own documentation or whitepaper for inconsistencies, checking whether contract ownership has been renounced or still sits with a live wallet, and searching independently for any prior history, complaints, or audits tied to the project or its deployer address. Given the holder concentration noted above, it may also be worth monitoring whether those top wallets are exchange or lock contracts versus individual holders, since that materially changes what the concentration figure implies.
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.