| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 78.4% | Holder distribution | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 13992 | Token contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x779aed…ff6573 |
| Current owner | 0x44ddef…93fa5c |
| Holders | 13,992 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x2ccdc4…6e1fe4 | 29.70% |
| #2 | 0x4a58fc…3b4889 | 10.61% |
| #3 | 0xd13e73…6ed112 | 10.21% |
| #4 | 0x69b3d9…50c476 | 6.34% |
| #5 | 0x23bde0…ff5f49 | 5.32% |
This automated check found that GMT's contract includes several functions that give the contract owner substantial control over the token after it has been issued. The owner can mint new tokens, which means the total supply is not fixed and could be increased at the owner's discretion, potentially diluting existing holders. The owner can also pause transfers, meaning holders could be prevented from moving or selling their tokens for a period of time if that function were triggered. Additionally, the contract allows the owner to change balances directly, which means token holdings could, in principle, be altered without the holder's action. Alongside this, the top 10 wallets hold 78.4% of the supply, a level of concentration that means a small number of addresses could exert significant influence over price if they were to buy or sell in size. On a more neutral note, the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows anyone to read the underlying code, and no honeypot behaviour was detected in transfer simulations at the time of this check, meaning selling was possible. Liquidity is not locked, so funds backing the token's trading pair could be withdrawn by whoever controls it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics only — it looks at what the code technically allows, not at who is behind the project, what their intentions are, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists around it. A contract can appear mechanically similar to thousands of others while sitting behind very different teams, roadmaps, and use cases. None of that is assessed here, and no human has reviewed this specific project.
Before deciding anything, it would be worth looking into who controls the owner address and whether it is a multisignature wallet or a single private key, since that affects how easily these permissions could be used. It's also worth checking whether ownership has been renounced or is held by a timelock contract, reviewing the project's own documentation and audit history if one exists, and looking at how the top holders' tokens were acquired and whether any are subject to vesting. Checking community discussion and the project's public communications for context on the mint and pause functions may also help clarify why they exist.
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.