| 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 | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Owner renounced — no one can pause | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Balances | Changeable — whoever controls the contract can take tokens from any wallet | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 1 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x669012…003cc8 | 100.00% |
This contract includes functions that would normally let the owner pause transfers, change fees, blacklist addresses, alter wallet and transaction limits, and adjust taxes — a broad set of controls that, if active, could materially affect what a holder is able to do with their tokens. In this case, ownership has been renounced, meaning the wallet that held these powers no longer has the ability to call them, and no pause or blacklist was detected in ChainSift's simulation as a result. Separately, the contract retains a function that allows balances to be changed directly. Because ownership is renounced, this function should likewise be unusable by anyone at the time of this check, but its presence in the code is noted here so you understand what the contract is structurally capable of if that assumption about renouncement ever turns out to be incomplete or circumvented. No admin mint function was found, there is no upgradeable proxy, and the sell simulation completed without detecting honeypot behaviour, with buy and sell tax both reading 0% from the contract at the time of the check.
The holder distribution is a separate and significant signal: the top 10 holders currently hold 100% of supply, and only one holder address was found on the token contract. This points to extremely concentrated ownership of the circulating supply, which means the ability to move markets in this token may rest with very few wallets, regardless of what the contract code itself allows or restricts.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics as deployed on-chain — it does not assess who built the token, whether the team has a track record, how the tokenomics are structured beyond what's visible in holder counts, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the stated intent behind the token is. Source verification being present means the code is readable, not that it has been manually reviewed or that its stated purpose matches its behaviour in every scenario.
Before putting money into this or any token, it's worth looking at where the single large holder's tokens sit — whether in a known liquidity pool, a locked contract, or an ordinary wallet — since that materially changes what concentration means in practice. It's also worth checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, looking for any independent audit reports, and researching the team's public presence and history independently of this contract 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.