| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — the sell tax takes the whole sale | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 100% | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 56.5% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 455 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xef5113…6a4ab8 |
| Holders | 455 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 11.44% |
| #2 | 0x90fe60…de3ec1 | 7.15% |
| #3 | 0x11bf2e…067e26 | 7.15% |
| #4 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0x8d1247…9dfc90 | 5.03% |
| #5 | 0xb3c7be…b68285 | 4.29% |
This automated check gave AICC (AI Chain Coin) on Ethereum a score of 0 out of 18, and the findings point to a serious structural problem rather than a borderline one. The simulation found that selling is blocked: the contract applies a sell tax of up to 100%, meaning a sale transaction effectively hands over the entire proceeds and returns nothing to the seller. In practice, this is what's known as honeypot behaviour — tokens can be bought but not meaningfully sold. On top of this, the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, so its underlying logic cannot be read in plain terms, only inferred from bytecode and simulated behaviour. The top 10 holders control 56.5% of the circulating supply, which means a small number of wallets could influence the market by moving large amounts at once. Liquidity is also not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, which in combination with blocked selling removes two separate routes by which a holder could otherwise exit a position.
It's worth being clear about what this check does and doesn't cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it simulates buy and sell transactions and inspects what the code allows the contract owner or deployer to do. It does not assess who is behind the project, whether any team identity has been disclosed, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether any legal entity stands behind the token, or what the stated intentions of the deployer are. A low score here reflects what the contract's code and current on-chain state permit, not a judgement about the people involved or their motives, which this tool has no way to evaluate.
Given that selling is currently blocked, there is no version of a test transaction that would be informative here — any funds sent into a contract with this sell-tax behaviour would be exposed to the same inability to exit, however small the amount. Instead, next steps that don't involve putting money at risk include searching the contract address on a block explorer to see if source code gets verified later, checking whether liquidity gets locked and for how long, looking at whether the top holder wallets are exchange or team addresses versus unknown individual wallets, and searching independently for any public information about the team or project beyond the token contract itself. Findings reflect only what was detected on the date of this check and may change if the contract or its liquidity conditions are updated.
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.