| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 48.8% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 62111 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x146ee7…aed5e2 |
| Holders | 62,111 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x64014e…793464 | 21.10% |
| #2 | 0x76ec5a…78fbd3 | 4.76% |
| #3 | 0xd2b8ec…b54762 | 3.42% |
| #4 | 0xd86fa4…0d3bca | 2.93% |
| #5 | 0xc4f56f…5f6ea8 | 2.77% |
This automated check looked at ANKR's contract code and current on-chain data, not at the people or promises behind the project. On the date of the check, a sell simulation completed successfully, and no buy or sell tax was detected, meaning the contract does not appear to redirect or reduce funds when tokens are bought or sold. No admin minting function was detected, so there is no indication the owner can create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No transfer-pausing function was detected, meaning the contract does not appear to let the owner freeze all token movement. No address blacklist function was detected, so there is no sign the owner can block specific wallets from transacting. The contract is also not upgradeable, which means its core logic cannot be swapped out after deployment by whoever controls it. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic described here can be independently read by anyone, rather than taken on trust. Two points stand out: the top 10 holders control 48.7% of the supply, a concentration level that means large holders could move significant amounts of the token at once, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool retains the ability to withdraw it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It does not assess who the team behind the token is, whether they have a track record, whether the tokenomics or distribution plan make long-term sense, whether any legal or regulatory structure applies, or what the stated intentions of the project are. A contract can show no risky functions in its code and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, an inactive team, or misleading marketing — none of which this automated scan is capable of detecting.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking at a few concrete things beyond this report. Check who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses rather than independent holders — concentration alone isn't automatically alarming if it traces back to exchanges. Look into whether the liquidity pool, though unlocked, is controlled by a known and long-standing entity (Ankr Network has public operations history, which can be checked independently), and look for any official statements about liquidity or treasury management. Review trading volume and liquidity depth on a tracker like DEXTools or a similar aggregator. Finally, read any available audit reports and cross-check the team's public presence, communications and history, since none of that is captured by a contract-mechanics scan like this one.
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.