| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 60.1% | Holder distribution | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 14587 | Token contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x8e8f16…1c8667 |
| Holders | 14,587 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xcdd73d…0cd3ec | 21.35% |
| #2 | 0xf97781…41acec | 13.29% |
| #3 | 0xfc75eb…032b49 | 5.44% |
| #4 · contract | 0xb65c87…c3e962 | 5.01% |
| #5 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 3.19% |
This automated check of the MASK contract on Ethereum found no mint function, no pause function, no blacklist capability and no upgradeable proxy pattern at the time of the scan, meaning the contract owner does not currently appear to hold the ability to create new tokens out of thin air, freeze transfers, block specific wallets from selling, or swap in different contract logic later. Buy and sell tax are both recorded at 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token can be sold, which is a basic check against honeypot behaviour where a token can be bought but not resold. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the actual code is publicly readable rather than hidden behind a compiled blob. Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than reassurances: the top 10 holders together control 60.1% of supply, which is a concentration level where large sales by a small number of wallets could affect the market meaningfully, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool retains the technical ability to withdraw it.
None of this tells you whether the people behind Mask Network intend to act in holders' interests, whether the token's stated use case is credible, or whether the broader business or legal structure around it is sound. This check reads contract mechanics only: what the code technically permits, not who controls it, what their track record is, or what they plan to do next. A token can pass every mechanical check listed here and still carry substantial risk tied to team decisions, token distribution schedules, marketing claims, or regulatory exposure — none of which an automated scan of bytecode and on-chain data can assess.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth looking at who holds the top wallets and whether they are known entities such as exchanges or treasury addresses rather than unlinked individual accounts, since concentration alone doesn't say who is on the other end. It's also worth checking who controls the liquidity pool and whether it belongs to a team-controlled address, an exchange listing, or a locked contract elsewhere that this scan didn't detect. Reviewing the project's own documentation, audit history if any, team disclosures, and community discussion around governance and token unlocks would add context this report does not cover. This summary reflects an automated read of on-chain data as of the check date only, and conditions such as holder concentration or liquidity status can change afterward.
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.