| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No data | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 100.00% |
| #2 · contract | 0x322dce…7968cc | 0.00% |
This automated check scored GINNAN at 0 out of 10 on Ethereum, and the findings explain why. Because the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, the check could only read raw bytecode rather than human-readable logic, which means core mechanics — whether the owner can mint new tokens at will, pause transfers, blacklist specific wallets, or upgrade the contract to change its rules entirely — could not be confirmed one way or the other. In practice, "no data" on these functions is not the same as "no risk": it means the automated check was unable to verify their presence or absence, so an owner retaining any of these powers cannot be ruled out. Separately, the sellability test returned no result, meaning the check could not confirm whether holders are actually able to sell this token back into the market. Alongside this, only two wallet addresses hold any supply at all, with the top ten (effectively, here, just those two) controlling 100% of the tokens in circulation — a level of concentration that means a very small number of holders could move the entire supply at once.
It's worth being clear about what this check does and does not cover. This is an automated read of contract code and on-chain data only — no person has reviewed this token, and nothing here speaks to who the team behind GinnanCoin is, what their intentions are, how tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder counts, or whether any legal or regulatory structure sits behind the project. A low score reflects unverifiable or concerning contract mechanics and extreme holder concentration; it is not a statement about fraud, intent, or future price behaviour, and a higher score on a different token would not amount to a guarantee of safety either.
Given that sellability could not be confirmed and the source code is unverified, there is no safe way to test this token by buying a small amount — if sell functionality is restricted or blocked, funds put in may not be recoverable regardless of the amount. Before considering any further action, it would be worth looking for the verified source code directly on the block explorer to see if it appears elsewhere, checking whether the two holding addresses are linked to a locked liquidity pool or exchange contract rather than private wallets, and researching the team or project independently through channels outside the contract itself. Given the near-total concentration of supply in two addresses, any claims about distribution or community ownership should be weighed against this on-chain reality specifically.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.