| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 80.5% | Holder distribution | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 497 | Token contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 20 Sept 2025 — 356 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0xb31e33…8b74d7 |
| Deployed by | 0xce0fde…6cc78a |
| Current owner | 0x7a0cce…bbb4d2 |
| Holders | 497 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x000000…e08a90 | 47.26% |
| #2 | 0x28c6c0…f21d60 | 10.02% |
| #3 | 0x1ce17e…4ad56d | 4.90% |
| #4 | 0xe341de…5e27f3 | 3.60% |
| #5 | 0xd6b168…61c5e3 | 2.96% |
This automated check scanned the 0G contract on Ethereum and returned a score of 13 out of 18. In practical terms, the scan found no admin mint function, meaning the contract owner was not detected to have a built-in way to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers at will, and no blacklist function was detected, meaning no coded mechanism was found for blocking specific wallets from trading. A transfer simulation showed the token could be sold, with 0% buy tax and 0% sell tax found in the contract at the time of the check, which is a positive sign against honeypot-style behaviour where a token can be bought but not sold. The contract is verified on the block explorer, so its code is publicly readable, and it was not found to use an upgradeable proxy pattern, meaning the logic is not designed to be swapped out later. Two things stand out as higher risk: the top 10 holders were found to control 80.5% of supply, a high concentration that means a small number of wallets could move the market if they sell, and liquidity was found to not be locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it without a time-lock preventing them.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at code and on-chain data, not at people or promises. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the token's supply or incentives are structured, whether there is a whitepaper or roadmap that makes sense, or whether any legal entity stands behind it. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals or unclear intent, and conversely, a lower-scoring contract is not proof of bad intent.
Before putting money in, it is worth looking at who holds the locked or unlocked liquidity and whether there is any lock contract or vesting schedule visible on-chain, checking whether the top wallets are exchange or treasury addresses rather than individuals, searching for the team's public identity and history, reading any audit reports from named third parties, and checking community channels for how long the token has been trading and whether liquidity has been added or removed recently. None of this should be treated as a recommendation to buy or sell — it is simply the next layer of homework beyond what an automated contract scan can tell you.
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.