| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 3 | Token contract | 11 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 11 Jul 2025 — 427 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0xc65545…014f4d |
| Deployed by | 0x826e0b…c153ba |
| Holders | 3 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x715b1d…8d0bb0 | 95.60% |
| #2 | 0x477f48…6544df | 4.00% |
| #3 | 0x9ca33d…b74a43 | 0.40% |
This automated check scored ENSO 11 out of 18, and the findings are worth reading carefully rather than treating as a single pass/fail number. The contract uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, which means the code that actually governs how the token behaves can be swapped out after deployment by whoever controls the upgrade function. In practice, this means the rules you see today — including the absence of certain risky features — are not necessarily the rules that will apply tomorrow, since an upgrade could introduce new behaviour such as taxes, transfer restrictions, or minting, none of which were detected at the time of this check. Separately, the top 10 holders control 100% of supply, and the contract shows only 3 holders in total. That is an extremely high concentration: it means a very small number of wallets hold the entire circulating supply, so price and liquidity are highly dependent on the decisions of very few parties. On the positive side, no admin mint function, pausable transfers, or blacklist mechanism were detected in the contract, and a sell simulation completed successfully, meaning no honeypot-style blocking of sales was detected on the date of this check. The contract source is also verified on the block explorer, which allows the code to be read but does not by itself indicate anything about intent or safety.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at functions, permissions, and on-chain data structure. It does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is doxxed or anonymous, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there is a working product, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists. A contract can score well on mechanics and still carry substantial risk from concentrated ownership, undisclosed team control, or business factors entirely outside what a contract scan can see.
Given the concentration figures here, it would be reasonable to look at the project's own documentation or announcements to understand who holds those top wallets and why the holder count is so low — for example, whether this reflects an early-stage token, a locked treasury, or something else. It's also worth checking whether the upgrade/admin keys are held by a single wallet or a multisig, looking for any audit reports, and searching independently for community discussion or news about the project before forming a view.
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.