| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 12.4% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 415 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xc65732…2bc695 |
| Holders | 415 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 3.09% |
| #2 | 0x33af87…47813b | 1.96% |
| #3 | 0x33f79e…2405c8 | 1.40% |
| #4 | 0x582dd4…8cda40 | 1.03% |
| #5 | 0x7d2239…ecad0d | 0.98% |
This automated check of SQK on Ethereum did not detect several contract-level behaviours that commonly let a token owner act against holders. An automated sell simulation completed successfully, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of the check. Buy and sell tax were both read as 0% directly from the contract, so no transaction fee was found at the time of testing. No admin mint function was found, meaning the contract does not appear to let the owner create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers. No blacklist function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not upgradeable, so its logic cannot be swapped out after the fact through a proxy. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the published code can be read and matched to what actually runs on-chain. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, meaning the liquidity pool tokens have been sent to a dead address rather than held by a wallet that could withdraw the underlying funds later.
It's worth being clear about what this check is and isn't. It reads contract mechanics only, automatically, on the day of the check — it does not involve a human reviewer, and it does not assess the people behind the project, how tokens are allocated or scheduled to unlock, any legal or regulatory status, or the intent of whoever deployed the contract. Top-10 wallets holding 12.4% of supply is on the lower end for concentration, but this check cannot tell you who those wallets belong to or whether they're linked to the team or to each other. A clean contract reading does not mean the people operating around it are trustworthy, and conditions like liquidity or holder distribution can change after the check is run.
Before putting money into SQK, it's worth looking into who is behind the project and whether that's disclosed anywhere, reading the tokenomics for vesting schedules or large allocations that could hit the market later, checking whether the liquidity lock or burn can be independently verified on-chain at the address level, looking at trading volume and how concentrated it is across exchanges, and searching for independent discussion of the project outside its own channels. None of this replaces your own judgement, and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold or sell.
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.