| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x86357a…508fc5 | 100.00% |
This automated check scored this contract 0 out of 10, and the underlying data explains why. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, which means nobody, including this automated system, can read the human-readable logic behind it — only the raw bytecode is visible. Because of this, key contract functions could not be retrieved or scored, so it is not possible to confirm or rule out whether the owner can mint new tokens at will, pause transfers, blacklist specific addresses, or upgrade the contract to change its rules after launch. A simulated transaction found that selling was possible at the time of the check, with no buy or sell tax detected, but this reflects conditions on the date tested, not a permanent guarantee of future behaviour. Separately, the holder data shows a single holder address controlling the entire supply, with the top 10 holders (effectively one entity here) holding 100% of all tokens — a concentration level that means whoever holds this supply has outsized ability to affect the available float and trading conditions at any time.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics and on-chain holder data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether any team has been doxxed, how tokens are intended to be distributed or vested over time, whether there is a whitepaper or legitimate business plan, or whether any marketing claims (including the use of a recognisable name like "Anthropic") are authorised or accurate. No person has reviewed this contract; the result is generated entirely by automated scanning and simulation, and it cannot speak to intent, legal status, or future conduct.
Given the unverified source code and complete supply concentration in one holder, a sensible next step would be to look up the contract address directly on a block explorer such as Etherscan to confirm the verification status yourself, check whether the project has any official communication channels or documentation linking it to a real entity, and search independently for whether "Anthropic" has made any public statement about issuing a token. It would also be worth checking whether the single holder address shows any transaction history suggesting it is a deployer or liquidity contract rather than an individual, since this changes how the concentration figure should be read. None of this replaces independent research, and this check should not be treated as the final word on whether funds should be committed.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.