| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | Contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 80.3% | Holder distribution | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 106066 | Token contract | 22 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb8d66f…7ca62f |
| Holders | 106,066 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x5e3ef2…13d908 | 35.44% |
| #2 · contract | 0x401f6c…21188b | 28.67% |
| #3 | 0xf97781…41acec | 3.70% |
| #4 · contract | 0x29e7df…0e2c4e | 3.48% |
| #5 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 2.30% |
This automated check found that the contract allows the owner to mint new tokens at will, which means the total supply is not fixed and could be increased, potentially diluting the value of existing holdings. It also found that the owner can pause transfers, meaning that under certain conditions the contract owner could temporarily stop some or all token movements across the network. No blacklist function was detected on the date of this check, so there is no evidence the contract can block specific wallet addresses individually. The buy and sell tax are both set at 0%, and transfer simulation indicates the token can currently be sold — no honeypot behaviour was detected. Top-10 wallets hold 80.3% of supply, which is a high concentration; large holders moving tokens can affect available liquidity and market behaviour. Liquidity not being locked is noted here as fairly typical for large, established tokens with many liquidity providers rather than a single controlling party, but it still means pooled funds are not contractually locked in place. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows the code to be read and checked by anyone, though verification alone does not say anything about how the privileged functions might be used.
It is important to understand what this check does not cover. It reads only the mechanics written into the smart contract — what the code technically allows the owner or admin to do. It does not assess who the team behind the project is, their track record, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the actual intentions of the people controlling admin functions are. A contract can score well on mechanics while still being tied to a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely a contract with broad owner permissions is not evidence of wrongdoing by itself — many legitimate, large-scale tokens retain admin controls for operational reasons.
Before putting money into any token, it is worth independently verifying who controls the owner wallet and whether that control sits with a multisig, a DAO, or a single private key, since that materially changes what "owner can mint" or "owner can pause" means in practice. It is also worth checking whether admin functions have a time-lock, reviewing the project's own documentation and audit history if available, and looking at how the top holders acquired their tokens and whether any are under vesting. None of this replaces independent research, and this check does not constitute financial advice.
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.