| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 15.2% | Holder distribution | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 671 | Token contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x14c893…dfac52 |
| Holders | 671 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x780c17…185ec2 | 2.16% |
| #2 | 0x5424a9…3f2b72 | 1.94% |
| #3 | 0x73d9ff…7dcbd2 | 1.59% |
| #4 | 0xa9a0a9…d064a1 | 1.49% |
| #5 | 0x183c40…3b222e | 1.47% |
This automated check on Super Pepe (SP) found no honeypot behaviour: a transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, and both buy and sell tax are recorded at 0%. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens and dilute holders. No transfer-pausing or address-blacklisting functions were found either, which would otherwise let an owner freeze trading generally or block specific wallets from selling. The contract is not upgradeable via a proxy, so its current code cannot be swapped for different logic later. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the published code can be read and matches what is deployed. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, which means the tokens that back the trading pair have been sent to an address no one controls, reducing (though not eliminating) the risk of that specific liquidity being pulled. Holder concentration is moderate, with the top 10 wallets holding 15.2% of supply across 671 holders on the date of this check.
It's worth being clear about what this does not cover. This is an automated reading of contract mechanics only — it has not been reviewed by a person, and it says nothing about who is behind the project, what the tokenomics or emission schedule look like beyond what's on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the team's intentions are. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be part of a project with no real utility, an anonymous team, or plans to abandon it. Absence of a flag means that behaviour was not detected in the contract at the time of this check; it does not rule out mechanisms outside the contract itself, such as off-chain agreements, control of large wallets, or future contract deployments.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who the team is and whether they're identifiable, checking whether there's an independent audit from a reputable firm, looking at the token's actual liquidity depth and trading volume (not just whether LP tokens are locked), and checking whether the top holders include exchange or team wallets rather than independent accounts. Reading the project's own documentation and community channels for consistency, and checking whether the contract has been flagged elsewhere, are also reasonable steps. None of this is investment advice, and nothing here predicts how the token's price or liquidity will behave going forward.
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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.