| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 30.2% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 40820 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x0ade41…0c00e2 |
| Holders | 40,820 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x589704…37421c | 4.40% |
| #2 | 0xeda440…f5a494 | 4.13% |
| #3 | 0xb2dbf8…6af1e7 | 3.83% |
| #4 | 0x2c3bba…cbcabd | 3.48% |
| #5 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0x4b62fa…ba743b | 3.44% |
This automated check scanned the smart contract behind Wrapped TON Coin on Ethereum and scored it 15 out of 18. In practical terms, the transfer simulation found the token to be sellable, with no buy or sell tax detected and no transfer-pausing or address-blacklisting functions present in the code — these are common mechanisms that, if present, would let a contract owner block or tax specific holders' transactions. No such mechanisms were detected on the date of this check. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its core logic cannot be silently swapped out later. However, the check did find that admin minting is enabled: this means whoever controls the owner address retains the ability to create new tokens at will, which could dilute existing holders' share of supply if exercised. It also found that liquidity is not locked, so whoever supplies the trading liquidity could, in principle, withdraw it, and that the top ten wallets hold 30.1% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could influence price through large sells. Source code being verified on the block explorer at least means the contract's logic is publicly readable rather than hidden.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads only the mechanics written into the contract — what functions exist and how they behave in simulation. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team is doxxed or anonymous, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached, or what the stated intentions of the owner are. A high mechanical score does not speak to the credibility of the people running it, and this process involves no human review at any stage — it is fully automated.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth looking into who controls the owner and mint-authority addresses and whether that control sits with a multisig or a single key, checking whether the liquidity pool address and its history of additions or removals are visible on a block explorer, reviewing the token's distribution and vesting schedule in more detail beyond the top-ten figure, and searching for any independent audits, team disclosures, or community discussion about this specific deployment. Cross-referencing the contract address against official project channels is also a reasonable step, since wrapped or bridged tokens are sometimes deployed under similar names by unrelated parties.
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.