| 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 | 59% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 316 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x516e5c…284914 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 316 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0x59e4be…d02fab | 32.58% |
| #2 · contract | 0xf711f2…3c86f2 | 3.04% |
| #3 · contract | 0x970af3…fc7b16 | 2.97% |
| #4 · contract | 0xb5c70e…22524a | 2.94% |
| #5 · contract | 0xabe8fc…20e03c | 2.93% |
This automated check looked at the contract's code and current on-chain data and found no honeypot behaviour: a transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, and both the buy and sell tax are set at 0% at the time of the check. No admin minting function was detected, meaning the contract owner was not found to have a built-in way to create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers, and no blacklist function was found that could block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable, which means the code's current rules cannot later be swapped out for different ones through a proxy. The source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic described above can be independently read by anyone, not just inferred from behaviour. Two points stand out on the other side: the top 10 holders control 59% of supply, which means large sells by a small number of wallets could affect the market significantly, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool is free to withdraw it at any time, which can sharply reduce the ability to sell and the price received.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It only reads contract mechanics as they exist on-chain right now — it does not know who the team behind Uv4 is, whether their identity has been verified, what their track record looks like, how the token's economics are supposed to work long-term, or whether any legal or regulatory structure applies. It cannot assess intent: a clean contract can still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals or a team that later chooses not to act in holders' interests. This is an automated, point-in-time read of code and on-chain data, not a review by a person, and conditions such as liquidity, holder concentration, and even contract behaviour can change after this check was run.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses rather than independent holders, checking whether the liquidity pool address has any history of large withdrawals, looking for a public team or audit history, and reviewing discussion of the project on independent forums rather than only official channels. Re-running a check like this periodically is also reasonable, since flags such as liquidity lock status and holder concentration can shift over time even when the contract code itself does not.
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.