| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 64.2% | Holder distribution | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 19978 | Token contract | 10 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 26 Apr 2019 — 2,694 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x85b8be…372a02 |
| Deployed by | 0x4a164c…dda981 |
| Current owner | 0x4a164c…dda981 |
| Holders | 19,978 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x91d40e…c8debe | 19.32% |
| #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 at 12 out of 18 on contract mechanics. A few findings are worth translating into plain terms. The contract supports blacklisting addresses, which means whoever controls it has the technical ability to block specific wallets from transferring or selling this token, should that function be used. The contract is also an upgradeable proxy, meaning the underlying logic that governs how the token behaves can be replaced after the fact — the rules you see today are not necessarily the rules that apply tomorrow. On the more reassuring side, no admin minting function was detected, no pause-on-transfers function was detected, and buy/sell simulation returned 0% tax with the token sellable at the time of the check. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows the underlying logic to be read, though verification alone does not neutralise the upgradeability or blacklist functions noted above. Separately, liquidity is not locked, and the top 10 holders control 64.2% of supply — both of which relate to how easily large holders or pool owners could move funds or shift price, independent of the contract's built-in permissions.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate the team behind the token, their track record, tokenomics design, roadmap, legal structure, or intent. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be tied to a team or plan that carries risk this check has no way of seeing, and conversely, flagged permissions do not by themselves indicate wrongdoing — many legitimate projects use upgradeable contracts or blacklist functions for compliance or security reasons.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who controls the contract's admin functions and whether that control sits with a multisig or a single wallet, checking whether the upgrade authority is time-locked or subject to any governance process, looking at the exchange's or project's own documentation on how blacklisting has been used historically, and reviewing where the top holders' tokens sit — exchange reserves, team allocations, or free-floating wallets each carry different implications. Checking whether liquidity being unlocked is explained by the token's own custody model (as is common for exchange-issued tokens) is also worth doing directly with primary sources rather than assuming. None of this constitutes investment advice, and this summary should be read alongside, not instead of, your own research.
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.