| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 38% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 25640 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb50593…94e155 |
| Current owner | 0xcda8e3…2f4c92 |
| Holders | 25,640 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x8f6449…ba449c | 11.15% |
| #2 · contract | 0x744dbc…38da24 | 7.31% |
| #3 | 0xf97781…41acec | 3.55% |
| #4 | 0x1f9034…ac3909 | 3.05% |
| #5 · contract | 0x806f68…0d8431 | 2.37% |
This automated check looked at ZRO's contract mechanics on Ethereum and scored 16 out of 18, with no honeypot behaviour detected at the time of the check. In practical terms, this means the simulation found the token can be bought and sold, with no buy or sell tax applied, so the contract does not currently appear to block or penalise transfers. No admin minting function was found, which would otherwise let the contract owner create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, which would otherwise let the owner freeze transfers entirely. No blacklist function was found, which would otherwise let specific addresses be blocked from trading. The contract is not upgradeable via a proxy, meaning its code cannot be swapped out later for different logic. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code is publicly readable rather than hidden. Top-10 wallets hold 37.8% of supply, which is a concentration figure worth noting, though spread across a base of over 25,000 holders. Liquidity in the main pool is not locked, but this is attributed to it being distributed across 17 separate providers rather than controlled by one party, which is typical for tokens of this size.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads only the contract's code and on-chain data as they existed on the date of the check. It says nothing about the team behind the project, their track record, or whether they have legal accountability. It does not assess tokenomics design, vesting schedules, treasury management, or how supply might change through governance decisions outside the contract itself. It cannot determine intent, and the absence of a flag here means that behaviour was not detected during this check, not that it is impossible under different conditions or future contract changes.
Before putting money into any position, it's worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or treasury addresses rather than individual speculators, since concentration figures alone don't distinguish between the two. Checking the project's official documentation and any audits from independent security firms can add context the contract alone can't provide. Reviewing how liquidity is distributed across providers and pools over time, rather than at a single snapshot, can also be useful. Finally, cross-referencing this contract address against the project's official channels helps confirm you're looking at the correct, intended token rather than an imitation.
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.