| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — the sell tax takes the whole sale | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 100% | ChainSift simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | 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 | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 487101 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xd816c7…77338f |
| Holders | 487,101 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x67f217…b530b8 | 500.00% |
| #2 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 300.00% |
| #3 | 0x7113cf…4f82d1 | 190.00% |
| #4 | 0x68d28d…d62067 | 100.00% |
| #5 | 0x13c70a…ad43f7 | 80.00% |
This automated check found that ETHG's contract blocks selling outright: the simulation shows a sell tax of 100%, meaning anyone who buys this token would not be able to convert it back out — the entire value of a sale is taken by the contract itself. This is what's commonly called a honeypot pattern, and it's the most serious finding possible in this type of check, which is why the score is 0 out of 12 regardless of anything else detected. Separately, the contract owner has an enabled minting function, which means new tokens can be created and added to the supply at any time, diluting existing holders. The contract's source code is also not verified on the block explorer, so the check was limited to reading raw bytecode rather than human-readable logic, and liquidity in the trading pool is not locked, meaning whoever controls it could remove it at any time. No data was available on whether transfers can be paused or addresses blacklisted, which simply means those mechanics weren't detectable from the contract as published, not that they're absent.
What this check does not tell you is anything about who is behind ETHG, what they intend to do, whether any claims made about the project are accurate, or how the 487,101 holders of record came to hold the token. Holder count alone says nothing about distribution — a small number of wallets could still hold the overwhelming majority of supply. This is a mechanical read of the contract's code and behaviour on one date; it is not an assessment of the team, the roadmap, the tokenomics, or any legal standing.
Given that the simulation indicates sold tokens cannot be converted back out, there is no version of a test purchase — however small — that avoids this: funds put into a token with this kind of sell block stay in it. If you want to look further before deciding anything, you could check the token's liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who holds the LP tokens and whether they're locked anywhere, look at the top holder wallets to gauge concentration, search for the contract address on scam-report aggregators and community forums, and try to find out whether the project has published verified source code anywhere else. None of that changes what the simulation already shows about selling, but it can help build a fuller picture of the contract's history and reputation.
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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.