| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 58.5% | Holder distribution | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 104077 | Token contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x32a12e…0477de |
| Current owner | 0xe8dc0f…db7c94 |
| Holders | 104,077 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xb805ef…890936 | 8.23% |
| #2 | 0xfa847c…50a078 | 8.21% |
| #3 · contract | 0x2146aa…47f1d0 | 7.83% |
| #4 · contract | 0x8be346…a7b3b9 | 6.34% |
| #5 | 0xd332ab…71aec9 | 6.10% |
This automated check scanned ENA's contract code and current on-chain data, and scored it 12 out of 18 on the mechanics it looked for. A few things stand out. The contract's owner retains the ability to mint new tokens, which means total supply could be increased at a later date, potentially diluting existing holders' share of the token. The contract does not contain transfer-pausing or blacklist functions, so based on this check, the owner cannot currently freeze transfers or block specific addresses from moving their tokens. The top 10 wallet addresses hold 58.5% of the circulating supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could influence price if they were to buy or sell in size. The liquidity pool is not locked in a time-locked contract, but this is described as typical for a token of this size, and the main pool's liquidity is spread across 159 separate providers rather than controlled by one party. Buy and sell taxes were both found to be 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is currently sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated review to take place at all.
It's worth being clear about what this check cannot tell you. It only reads contract mechanics and surface-level on-chain data — it does not assess who is behind the project, how the team is structured, whether token allocations or vesting schedules are fair, whether any legal or regulatory obligations apply, or what the team's actual intentions are. A clean mechanical read does not speak to any of that, and a flagged item does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing either — it simply describes a capability present in the code.
Before putting money into any token, it's worth looking beyond contract code. Consider researching the team publicly, including whether identities are disclosed and whether they have a track record. Look into tokenomics: how supply is allocated, whether large holders are subject to vesting or lockups, and what minting could be used for. Check whether liquidity pool ownership is genuinely distributed, as this check suggests, or concentrated behind the scenes. Review any available audits from independent security firms, and look for how long the contract has been live and how its holder base has changed over time. None of this check's findings should be treated as a recommendation to buy, hold or avoid this token — it's one input among several, reflecting only what was detected in the contract on the date of the 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.