| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 38.5% | Holder distribution | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 698406 | Token contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
This automated check scored DAI 14 out of 18 on contract mechanics detected at the time of the scan. The mint function being enabled means whoever controls the relevant admin role can create new tokens beyond the current supply — a mechanism that, in general, could be used to increase supply and affect the value of existing holdings, though it is also a standard feature of how DAI's collateral-backed system is designed to function. No transfer pause and no address blacklist were detected, meaning the contract does not appear to give an owner the ability to freeze transfers or block specific wallets from moving tokens as of this check. The contract is not upgradeable via proxy, so the underlying code logic is not flagged as changeable after deployment. Buy and sell simulations returned a 0% tax with no honeypot behaviour detected, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the deployed bytecode can be matched against readable code. Top-10 wallets hold 38.5% of supply, which is a concentration figure worth noting alongside the very high holder count of nearly 700,000 addresses.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at what the code technically permits, not at who controls it, why, or what they intend to do with that control. It does not assess the team behind the token, the legitimacy or accuracy of any documentation, the broader tokenomics or collateral model, legal or regulatory status, or the actual behaviour of any admin keys over time. A contract can score well on mechanics while still carrying risks this check has no visibility into, such as custodial arrangements, governance changes, or how minting authority is exercised in practice.
Before acting on this information, it would be worth looking into who or what holds the admin/mint role for this contract and whether that control sits with a multisig, a DAO, or a single key, and how that has changed historically. It's also worth reviewing independent audits if available, checking the project's own documentation on collateralisation and governance, and looking at how the top-10 holder wallets are labelled — some concentration in stablecoins reflects known protocol or exchange addresses rather than individual holders, but this check does not confirm that either way. None of the above should be read as investment advice or a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.
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.