| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 33.6% | Holder distribution | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 86864 | Token contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
This automated check found no honeypot behaviour: the simulation showed the token can be bought and sold, with 0% buy tax and 0% sell tax detected on the date of the check. No admin mint function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, and no address blacklist function were detected in the contract code. These are meaningful because their presence would let a contract owner block specific wallets from selling, freeze transfers entirely, or dilute supply at will — none of that was found here.
The contract does use an upgradeable proxy, which means the logic behind the token can be replaced by whoever controls the upgrade key, even if today's code looks clean. In practice this means the rules governing the token could change in the future without holders needing to approve anything, so today's findings describe the contract as it stands now, not a permanent guarantee. Liquidity was also found to be not locked, and the top 10 holders were found to control 33.6% of supply — concentrated holdings mean a small number of wallets could move a large share of the token at once, which can affect price and available liquidity on the open market. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the deployed code is readable and matches what's published, which supports the reliability of this automated check but does not by itself indicate anything about intent.
This check reads contract mechanics only. It does not assess who is behind the token, how the upgrade key or admin permissions are controlled in practice, the token's economic design, whether it involves a regulated issuer or reserve backing, or any legal and compliance status. A high mechanics score is not a statement that the people involved are trustworthy or that the token's broader structure is sound — it only reflects what was detected in the code at the time of the check.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth looking into who holds the proxy's upgrade rights and whether that is disclosed publicly, checking the identity and history of the issuing organisation, reviewing any published reserve attestations or audits if the token claims to be backed by an asset, and looking at where and how the top holders' wallets are used (for example, exchange or custodial addresses versus unknown private wallets). Checking liquidity depth across venues, rather than relying on a single pool, is also worth doing given that liquidity was not found to be locked. None of this replaces independent research, and this summary does not constitute financial advice.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.
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.