| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 28.8% | Holder distribution | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 168523 | Token contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xf5e38b…64c4bc |
| Current owner | 0x398e41…a446f7 |
| Holders | 168,523 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x4a220e…254675 | 21.01% |
| #2 | 0x48e9af…04a170 | 1.38% |
| #3 | 0x826678…22d78b | 1.37% |
| #4 | 0xdf3b5a…a98eb6 | 1.35% |
| #5 | 0xf97781…41acec | 0.66% |
This automated check scanned QNT's contract mechanics on Ethereum and returned a score of 15 out of 18, with no honeypot behaviour detected: the simulation showed the token can be bought and sold, and both buy and sell tax are 0%. That said, a few findings are worth understanding plainly. Admin mint is enabled, meaning the contract owner retains the ability to create new tokens beyond the current supply, which can dilute existing holders' share of the total if exercised. Top-10 wallets hold 28.8% of supply, a concentration level that means a relatively small number of holders could influence price if they were to sell in size. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens is not contractually restricted from withdrawing that liquidity, which affects how easily the token could be sold at a stable price if it happened. On the reassuring side, the source code is verified on the block explorer, there is no pausable transfer function detected, no address blacklist function detected, and the contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning the logic cannot be silently swapped out later.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only, as of the date the check was run. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has doxxed identities or a track record, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached, or what the actual intentions of the people controlling the mint function or the liquidity are. A high score here reflects the absence of certain detected mechanical risks in the code — it is not a statement about the people, the business, or the token's economic design, and it does not assess future conduct.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or treasury addresses rather than individual speculators, since that changes what concentration means in practice. It's also worth checking whether the liquidity pool address is controlled by a multisig or a single private key, since that affects how liquidity could be withdrawn. Reviewing the project's own documentation on mint permissions — whether there's a cap, a timelock, or governance process around minting — would clarify how the admin mint function is actually intended to be used. Finally, cross-checking holder count and distribution trends over time, and looking for any public audits or team disclosures, would give a fuller picture than contract mechanics alone can provide.
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.