| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Owner renounced — no one can pause | ChainSift simulation | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Owner renounced — no one can blacklist | ChainSift simulation | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 35.2% | Holder distribution | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 599511 | Token contract | 19 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xfbfeaf…b58c9a |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 599,511 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf97781…41acec | 8.99% |
| #2 | 0x1d4896…030270 | 6.17% |
| #3 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 4.48% |
| #4 | 0x3f9a83…5699b8 | 3.33% |
| #5 | 0x611f7b…dfb09d | 3.02% |
This automated check looked at how the PEPE contract is built and how it behaves, not at who runs it or what it's trying to achieve. The findings show that the contract does contain functions that, in principle, would let an owner pause transfers or blacklist specific addresses from trading (setRule, blacklist). In practice, ownership of this contract has been renounced, which means the automated simulation found no account currently able to call those functions. No admin mint function was detected, so no mechanism was found that would let new tokens be created and added to supply at will. The contract is not upgradeable, meaning its code cannot be swapped for different logic later. Buy and sell tax both read 0%, and a transfer simulation completed a sale successfully, so no honeypot behaviour — a setup that blocks selling — was detected on the date of this check. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the code backing these results is publicly viewable and matches what is deployed.
A few things sit outside the "no flag" picture and are worth sitting with. Top-10 wallets hold 35.2% of supply, which is a meaningful concentration — large holders moving tokens can affect available liquidity and price regardless of contract mechanics. Liquidity is not locked, though the contract's note that this pool has 78 separate liquidity providers is relevant context: a single actor pulling liquidity is less straightforward than in a pool controlled by one or two wallets, though it remains unlocked by definition.
It's worth being clear about what this check cannot tell you. It does not assess who the team behind PEPE is, whether they have a track record, how tokens were initially distributed, what the roadmap or stated use case involves, or whether any marketing claims hold up. It does not constitute any judgement on legality, legitimacy, or intent, and no human has reviewed this token — the entire analysis was produced automatically by reading contract code and on-chain data.
Before deciding anything, it would be reasonable to look up who the top holders are and whether they're exchanges, contracts, or known early wallets, read independent commentary on PEPE's origin and distribution, check whether the renouncement transaction itself is verifiable on-chain, and look at liquidity depth and trading volume over time rather than at a single snapshot. None of this check's findings should be read as advice to buy, hold, or avoid the token — it's a description of contract mechanics as detected on the date shown, nothing more.
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.