| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x3f5d40…7ddcee | 100.00% |
This automated check gave FSSN a score of 0 out of 10, which reflects a combination of unverified contract source code, extreme holder concentration, and a lack of reported data on several key contract functions. In practice, because the source code is not verified, the exact bytecode on-chain cannot be matched against readable, auditable code — this means functions like minting new tokens, pausing transfers, blacklisting addresses, or upgrading the contract through a proxy could exist and be callable by the owner, but this check could not confirm or rule them out. Where "No data" appears, it means the automated scan was unable to determine the status of that function, not that the function is absent. Separately, the holder data shows that the top 10 holders control 100% of supply, and only one holder address was found in total — a concentration pattern that means a very small number of wallets (possibly just one) could move or sell a large portion of supply at any time, which can affect liquidity and price for anyone else holding the token. A simulated sell did complete successfully with 0% buy and sell tax detected at the time of the check, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected in that simulation — but this result reflects conditions on the day of the check only and does not guarantee future behaviour, particularly given the unverified source.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics and on-chain data only — it does not assess the team behind the token, their identity or track record, the project's tokenomics or long-term supply plans, any legal structure or jurisdiction, or the intent behind the contract's deployment. A low score here reflects contract-level and distribution-level risk indicators, not a judgement on the people or business behind FSSN, which this tool has no way to evaluate.
Given the unverified source and the extreme concentration of holders, concrete next steps would include searching the block explorer for the contract directly to see if a verification attempt has since been submitted, independently researching whether the deployer or team has published any identity, audit, or documentation elsewhere, and checking the transaction history of the top holder address to understand how and when that concentration formed. Because source code is unverified, any claims about fixed supply, renounced ownership, or locked liquidity should be independently verified against the raw contract rather than taken from marketing materials.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.