| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 90.6% | Holder distribution | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 33104 | Token contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 23 Dec 2023 — 990 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x95ea29…bee7ec |
| Deployed by | 0x97cf38…0a90a3 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 33,104 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x3154cf…0f2c35 | 49.70% |
| #2 | 0x37672d…0cb081 | 34.07% |
| #3 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 2.62% |
| #4 | 0xc7c914…c23741 | 0.96% |
| #5 | 0xf97781…41acec | 0.85% |
This automated check on VIRTUAL, run on Ethereum, found a contract that behaved normally in simulation: transfers went through, buy and sell tax both came back at 0%, and no minting function, transfer pause switch, or blacklist mechanism was detected in the contract code on the date of this check. The contract also has no upgradeable proxy pattern, meaning the logic that has been reviewed cannot be silently swapped out later, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, so the code you'd be interacting with is publicly readable rather than hidden. In practical terms, none of the flags typically associated with an owner being able to freeze your tokens, mint unlimited new supply, or block you from selling were detected here. Two things stand out on the other side: the top 10 holders control 90.6% of the total supply, and the liquidity backing this token is not locked. High concentration means a small number of wallets could sell in size and move the price sharply; unlocked liquidity means whoever controls that liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, which could leave the token difficult or impossible to sell at a reasonable price.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics — code, permissions, and simple on-chain patterns — not the people or plans behind the token. Nothing here assesses whether the team is credible, whether the tokenomics or vesting schedule are reasonable, whether there's a real product or roadmap behind the name, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists. A clean mechanical read tells you the contract itself doesn't currently show the coded tricks that let an owner directly rug holders through the contract, but it says nothing about whether the humans behind the project intend to act in holders' interests, nor does it say anything about future price behaviour.
Before treating any of this as a basis for a decision, it's worth looking at who holds that 90.6% and whether those wallets are known team, exchange, or treasury addresses versus unrelated individuals, since that changes the read on concentration risk considerably. Check where the liquidity actually sits and who owns that pool, since unlocked liquidity is only a problem if the controlling wallet has an incentive or history of pulling it. Look for a public team, audit history, and social presence with a track record. And treat holder count, verified source, and clean tax figures as one input among several, not a conclusion in themselves.
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.