| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No data | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 13.4% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100%, end date unknown | LP holders · TeamFinance | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 329 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x1f155b…e105c8 |
| Holders | 329 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0xf2d197…b0c356 | 4.63% |
| #2 | 0x17ac4f…755a6c | 1.04% |
| #3 | 0x4b64c3…6165e1 | 1.01% |
| #4 | 0x70f3fd…101f6a | 0.98% |
| #5 | 0x392a26…b9d1f4 | 0.98% |
This automated check scored TORCH 6 out of 6 on the day it was run, based on what could be verified on-chain. An automated simulation found the token sellable, with no honeypot behaviour detected, and the buy and sell tax both read as 0% from the contract. Top-10 wallets hold 13.4% of supply, which is a relatively low concentration — it reduces, but does not remove, the risk of large holders moving the market if they sell at the same time. Liquidity is reported as 100% locked, though the end date of that lock is unknown, meaning there's no visibility into when it could be unlocked and withdrawn. Several contract mechanics — admin mint, transfer pausing, address blacklisting, upgradeable proxy status, and whether the source code is verified — returned no data from the data source, so they were not scored either way. That's a gap in the picture, not a clean bill of health on those points.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads contract-level mechanics: what functions exist, whether a simulated sale goes through, how concentrated the holders are, and whether liquidity is locked. It says nothing about who is behind the project, how tokens are allocated or scheduled to unlock, whether there are legal or regulatory issues, or what the team's actual intentions are. A contract can look clean on every mechanical measure and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, an anonymous or inexperienced team, or misleading marketing. No human has reviewed this token — the entire check, including this summary, was generated automatically from on-chain and block-explorer data.
Before putting any money toward TORCH, it would be worth looking into who the team is and whether they've disclosed their identity or history, reading the tokenomics to understand supply schedule and any vesting or unlock cliffs for large holders, and checking whether the contract source code is actually published and verified on a block explorer — since that status returned no data here, it's worth confirming independently. It's also sensible to look at the liquidity lock contract directly to find the actual unlock date, rather than relying on "locked" as a static label. Checking community activity, any audits from named firms, and whether the project has a working product or roadmap beyond the token itself can also help build a fuller picture. None of these findings, on their own or together, indicate that the token is safe to buy or that it carries no risk — they only describe what was and wasn't detected in the contract's mechanics 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 6 points out of 100.
The other 94 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.