| 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 | 22% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 377 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb4816c…c41193 |
| Holders | 377 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0x15b1f5…86cea0 | 3.89% |
| #2 | 0x6f4622…eec6a1 | 2.30% |
| #3 | 0x2f3582…f2572e | 2.15% |
| #4 | 0x5f6def…dbeb2d | 2.03% |
| #5 | 0x2e9f63…058069 | 1.99% |
This automated check looked at ZERO's contract code and on-chain data, and none of the common red flags for owner abuse were detected on the date of the check. A test transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, with no buy or sell tax applied. The contract does not contain an admin mint function, meaning the deployer has no built-in way to create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so transfers cannot currently be switched off by the contract owner. No blacklist function was found, meaning no mechanism was identified that would let an address be blocked from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable via a proxy, which means the underlying code cannot be swapped out later for different logic without holders being able to see it was a new deployment. Liquidity is recorded as 100% burned, which means the tokens that back the trading pool have been sent to an address no one controls, reducing the risk of that liquidity being pulled out by whoever provided it. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code matches what is publicly viewable rather than being hidden.
It's worth being 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 assesses the team behind it, their intentions, their track record, or whether the stated tokenomics match reality. A contract with no technical red flags can still be part of a project that is poorly run, misrepresented, or abandoned. Top-10 wallets holding 22% of supply is also worth sitting with: it is not flagged as a hard risk indicator here, but it does mean a meaningful share of tokens sits in a small number of hands, and concentrated holdings can affect how the market behaves if those holders choose to sell.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking beyond the contract itself. Check who the team is and whether they're identifiable or pseudonymous, look at how the token is distributed beyond the top 10 (377 holders is a fairly small base), search for any community discussion or independent commentary on the project, and check whether liquidity depth is sufficient for the trade size you're considering. None of this replaces your own judgement, and nothing in this check amounts to a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell.
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.