| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 30.2% | Holder distribution | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 39680 | Token contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 17 Aug 2021 — 1,851 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0xd5148b…cf93d1 |
| Deployed by | 0x0ade41…0c00e2 |
| Holders | 39,680 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x589704…37421c | 4.40% |
| #2 | 0xeda440…f5a494 | 4.12% |
| #3 | 0xb2dbf8…6af1e7 | 3.83% |
| #4 · UniswapV3 | 0x4b62fa…ba743b | 3.50% |
| #5 | 0x2c3bba…cbcabd | 3.47% |
This automated check scored TONCOIN (Wrapped TON Coin) on Ethereum at 15 out of 18, based on contract mechanics only, as verified on the date of this check. A few points are worth translating into plain terms. The contract's admin mint function is enabled, which means whoever controls the owner address can create new tokens at will — this can dilute existing holders' share of supply without their consent. Top-10 wallets currently hold 30.2% of supply, a concentration level that means large holders could move significant amounts and affect the market if they chose to sell. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever provided the trading pool could withdraw it, which in some setups can leave buyers unable to sell or facing a sharp price drop. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected: the simulation showed the token is sellable, buy and sell taxes are both 0%, and no pause or blacklist functions were found in the contract, meaning transfers cannot currently be frozen or specific addresses blocked at the contract level. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated review to take place at all.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is a purely mechanical read of the smart contract — it does not assess who is behind the project, how tokens were or will be distributed beyond the current snapshot, whether marketing claims match reality, legal structure, jurisdiction, or the intentions of the team or owner address. A contract can score well here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, some flags (like mint functions) are common in legitimate wrapped-token or bridge designs where minting corresponds to locked collateral elsewhere — this check cannot distinguish that context on its own.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who controls the owner and admin addresses, and whether that control sits with a multisig, a timelock, or a single private key. Check whether the liquidity pool is genuinely tied to a reputable bridge or custodian, since "Wrapped TON" implies backing by TON held elsewhere — verify that claim independently rather than assuming it. Look at the top-10 holder addresses individually to see if they're exchanges, bridge contracts, or unidentified wallets. Search for any audit reports, team disclosures, and community discussion about past mint events or liquidity changes. None of this replaces independent research and, where relevant, professional financial advice.
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.