| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 230.1% | Holder distribution | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 5817 | Token contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xc64421…4a15f6 |
| Current owner | 0xb7f636…74411a |
| Holders | 5,817 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Null Address · burned | 0x000000…000000 | 151.42% |
| #2 | 0xf97781…41acec | 33.95% |
| #3 | 0xc80afd…e92416 | 11.99% |
| #4 | 0x26209d…728c66 | 8.17% |
| #5 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 7.66% |
This automated check looked at TLM's contract code and current on-chain data, and scored it 12 out of 18. In practical terms, no admin minting function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No transfer-pausing or address-blacklisting functions were detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze the contract or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not upgradeable via a proxy, meaning its core logic cannot be silently swapped out after the fact. Buy and sell tax are both recorded at 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows the underlying code to be publicly read and checked rather than relying on a black box. Two points do stand out: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, and the top-10 holders figure is reported at 230.1% of supply, an unusually high concentration value that likely reflects how tokens are counted across multiple pools, wrapped versions, or contracts rather than a single straightforward reading — this figure should be treated as a flag for further manual review rather than taken at face value.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who the team behind TLM is, whether they have delivered on past promises, how the token's economics are structured long-term, whether there is a legal entity behind the project, or what their intentions are. A contract can score well on mechanics while still being tied to a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, some flagged mechanics exist for legitimate operational reasons. This score is not a verdict on the project as a whole.
Before making any decision, it would be sensible to look at where TLM's liquidity actually sits and confirm independently whether it is locked or held by a known, identifiable party. It's also worth investigating the holder distribution data directly on a block explorer to understand why the top-10 figure exceeds 100%, since that may involve exchange wallets, bridge contracts, or double-counted balances rather than genuine concentration. Researching the team's public identity, project history, and any independent audits, and reading the token's own documentation on supply and vesting, would all add context this check cannot provide.
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.