| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.8% | Holder distribution | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 204 | Token contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 10 Jun 2025 — 455 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x22134e…80c8f5 |
| Deployed by | 0x54124a…428955 |
| Holders | 204 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV3 | 0x27848b…ba8257 | 38.17% |
| #2 | 0xfebc47…d5bc3b | 14.99% |
| #3 | 0x90d88b…792efe | 12.01% |
| #4 | 0x4637ac…bf959e | 9.04% |
| #5 | 0xcdddbc…429010 | 8.50% |
This automated check scanned USDCV's contract code on Ethereum and found a mix of results worth understanding individually. The contract uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, which means the logic controlling how the token behaves can be swapped out by whoever holds the upgrade keys — in practice, this lets the contract owner change the rules of the token after the fact, potentially introducing new fees, restrictions, or functions that did not exist at the time of purchase. Top-10 wallets were found to hold 99.8% of the total supply, meaning a very small number of addresses could move a large share of tokens at once, which can affect price stability if any of them sell. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected: the simulation showed tokens can be sold, buy and sell tax are both set to 0%, and no admin mint, transfer-pausing, or blacklist functions were found in the contract as of the date of this check. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code shown matches what is deployed, which allows this kind of automated review to happen in the first place. Liquidity was not found to be locked, which means whoever provided the trading liquidity retains the ability to withdraw it at any time.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is a purely automated read of contract mechanics — it does not evaluate who the team behind USDCV is, whether their identities are known or verifiable, how the tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the stated intent of the token is. A contract can score well on mechanical checks like this one while still carrying risks tied to the people and structures around it, and no automated tool can assess intent.
Given the concentration in a handful of wallets and the unlocked liquidity, it would be reasonable to look further into who controls the top-10 addresses and whether any are known exchange or team wallets, to check whether the upgrade keys are held by a multisig or a single address, and to look for any public information about the team, audits, or liquidity provider identity. Reviewing the project's own documentation and independent community discussion alongside this check may also help build a fuller picture before making any decisions.
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.