| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 96.1% | Holder distribution | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 5500 | Token contract | 14 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa05c03…bdaaf1 |
| Current owner | 0xd365fa…fa7b09 |
| Holders | 5,500 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x6d339d…40a74c | 35.80% |
| #2 · contract | 0x5068e0…bbe792 | 34.00% |
| #3 | 0xbc1ac1…ebd619 | 7.39% |
| #4 · contract | 0xc34ffe…1fc172 | 6.30% |
| #5 · contract | 0x015f06…2c8e55 | 6.00% |
This automated check scanned the LOKA contract on Ethereum and scored it 10 out of 18 on the mechanics it looks for. A few findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract allows the owner to mint new tokens at will, which means the total supply is not fixed and new tokens could be created and introduced at the owner's discretion, potentially affecting each existing holder's share of the total. Top-10 wallets hold 96.1% of the supply, which is a high concentration: if a small number of addresses control that much of the token, their decisions to buy or sell can move the market significantly, and it also raises the question of how much supply is genuinely in independent hands versus held by the team, early allocators, or connected wallets. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, which would affect the ability to sell the token on that pool. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected in the sell simulation, buy and sell tax both read as 0%, and there is no pausable transfer function or address blacklist present in the contract as checked, meaning the code does not currently contain a built-in switch to freeze transfers or block specific wallets. The contract source is also verified on the block explorer, which allows the code to be read by anyone.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess the team behind the project, their track record, the token's economic design, any legal structure, marketing claims, or intent. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, flags like an unlocked liquidity pool or mint function don't by themselves indicate wrongdoing — many legitimate projects retain these for operational flexibility. None of these findings should be read as a judgement on the people or plans behind the token.
Before deciding anything, it's worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are labelled as exchange, team, or vesting addresses, checking whether the liquidity pool tokens are held by a known locking contract or by an individual wallet, reviewing the project's own documentation on mint policy and token distribution, and checking whether the contract or team has a public audit from a reputable firm. Looking at the holder count and transaction history over time can also give a sense of how organic the activity has been. None of this constitutes financial advice, and the findings above reflect only what was detectable in the contract on the date of this 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.