| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 2.8% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100%, end date unknown | LP holders · TeamFinance | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1742 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xaba1e1…a50cd3 |
| Holders | 1,742 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0x8d5288…0e95ea | 1.06% |
| #2 | 0xea3d4e…d04c9a | 0.33% |
| #3 | 0x77e987…749489 | 0.31% |
| #4 | 0xa4e151…4cb06e | 0.16% |
| #5 | 0x5e4e56…edd5ff | 0.16% |
This automated check of DACITY on Ethereum returned a score of 18 out of 18, meaning none of the contract-level risk indicators ChainSift scans for were detected on the date of this check. In practical terms: a simulated transfer showed the token can be sold, and both the buy and sell tax are set to 0%, so nothing in the contract code currently taxes or blocks trades. No admin mint function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens and dilute holders. Transfers are not pausable, so the owner does not appear to have a switch to freeze trading. No blacklist function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from selling. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out for different code later. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the actual logic is publicly readable rather than hidden. Holder concentration is low, with the top 10 wallets holding 2.8% of supply, and liquidity is reported as 100% locked, though the lock's end date is unknown, which matters because once a lock expires the liquidity provider could in theory withdraw it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. Everything above comes from reading the contract's code and on-chain data automatically — no person has reviewed this project, and nothing here speaks to who the team is, whether they are anonymous, what their track record is, how the token's supply and incentives are structured, whether any marketing claims are accurate, or whether there is a legal entity behind it. A contract can look clean by every mechanical measure listed here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, unrealistic promises, or founders who later abandon it. Mechanical risk indicators and the intent or competence of the people behind a token are two separate questions, and this page only answers the first.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who is behind the project and whether they're publicly identifiable, reading the tokenomics and supply schedule to understand how many tokens exist and who holds the rest beyond the top 10, checking the actual liquidity lock contract directly to see if an unlock date is set and when it falls, looking for independent commentary or audits from parties unaffiliated with the project, and treating any low-information or anonymous-team situation as a reason for added caution regardless of what this contract scan shows.
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.