| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not found | Implementation code | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — a single wallet can replace the code | Proxy contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 64.9% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 20094 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x4a164c…dda981 |
| Current owner | 0x4a164c…dda981 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0x4a164c…dda981 — a single wallet |
| Current code | 0x81a4ee…25e094 |
| Holders | 20,094 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x91d40e…c8debe | 20.04% |
| #2 | 0xe5f39b…1cc293 | 18.65% |
| #3 | 0x4a4aaa…7b068d | 7.18% |
| #4 | 0xc0bfd9…c49c9e | 6.64% |
| #5 | 0x6cc5f6…9fda7b | 2.63% |
This automated check scored OKB 12 out of 18 on contract mechanics alone. A few findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes a blacklist function, meaning whoever controls the admin wallet has the technical ability to block specific addresses from transferring or selling the token. More significantly, this is an upgradeable proxy contract — a single wallet holds the power to swap out the underlying code entirely, at any time, which means every other finding in this check (tax rates, mint behaviour, pausability) could change after the fact without the token address changing. On the positive side for this check date, no admin mint function or transfer-pausing mechanism was detected in the current implementation, buy and sell tax are both set at 0%, a sell simulation completed successfully, and the contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code is at least publicly readable. Holder concentration is high: the top 10 addresses hold 64.6% of supply, and liquidity was not found to be locked at the time of this check.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This is an automated read of contract code and on-chain data only — it has not been reviewed by a person. It says nothing about who is behind the project, how the team is funded, whether tokenomics are sustainable, what legal entity (if any) stands behind the token, or whether the stated intentions of the project match its actual conduct. A contract can score well here and still be tied to a team or arrangement that carries risk the code itself can't reveal, and conversely, flags like an upgradeable proxy exist on many tokens issued by exchanges or established projects for legitimate operational reasons, not necessarily malicious ones.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking into who controls the upgrade and blacklist privileges — for an exchange-linked token like this, that's often disclosed, and checking whether it's a multisig, a timelock, or a single private key matters. Look at where the top-10 holder addresses sit — exchange reserve wallets and team vesting contracts read very differently from unknown wallets. Check whether liquidity being unlocked is explained by the token's listing structure (many exchange tokens don't rely on public DEX liquidity pools the way smaller tokens do). Review any official documentation or audits published by the issuing organisation, and treat this score as one input to combine with your own research, not a final verdict.
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.