| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 95.6% | Holder distribution | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 48698 | Token contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 14 Nov 2023 — 1,027 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0xc8119d…dcfcc6 |
| Deployed by | 0x8de54b…6e8fae |
| Current owner | 0xe8dc0f…db7c94 |
| Holders | 48,698 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x5d3a1f…52ef34 | 43.51% |
| #2 | 0x9d39a5…7a3497 | 32.08% |
| #3 | 0x4f5923…12decf | 8.46% |
| #4 | 0xf97781…41acec | 2.22% |
| #5 | 0x3cc936…aecf18 | 2.22% |
This automated check on USDe scored 10 out of 18, and each finding points to something specific about what the contract allows, not about whether it will be used that way. Admin mint being enabled means the owner retains the ability to create new tokens beyond the current supply at any point, which could dilute the value of existing holdings if exercised. Top-10 wallets holding 95.6% of supply means a small number of addresses could move large amounts of tokens at once, which can affect the market if any of them sell. No transfer pausing or address blacklisting was detected on the date of this check, meaning the contract does not currently appear to give the owner a way to freeze transfers or block specific wallets from moving tokens. Liquidity not being locked means whoever provided the trading pool could withdraw it, which would affect the ability to buy or sell on that pool. Buy and sell tax were both read as 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, so no honeypot-style blocking behaviour was detected at the time of the check. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code behind these findings can be read by anyone, which is itself a transparency signal rather than a safety one.
None of this tells you who controls the admin functions, why the supply is concentrated the way it is, what the token is meant to represent, or whether there is a legal entity standing behind it. This check reads contract mechanics only — it does not assess the team, its history, tokenomics design, roadmap, marketing claims, or intent. A contract can score well on this kind of check and still carry risk, and a contract with flags like these is not automatically a scam; the flags describe capabilities, not actions taken.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who holds those top wallets and whether they are known entities such as exchanges or protocol treasuries rather than unlinked individual addresses, since that changes what concentration means in practice. Check whether the admin/mint keys are held by a single wallet or a multisig, and whether there's any public documentation on how and when mint authority would be used. Look at where the liquidity sits, on which exchange or pool, and whether any lock or vesting schedule has been published elsewhere. Finally, search independently for audits, team disclosures, and any regulatory or public registry information tied to the project, since none of that is covered by this contract-level check.
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.