| 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 | 100% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa9b35a…005d77 |
| Holders | 1 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xa9b35a…005d77 | 100.00% |
This automated check scanned BLACKTOBER's contract code and on-chain data on Ethereum, and scored it 12 out of 18. A transfer simulation found no honeypot behaviour: the token could be sold at the time of the check, with 0% buy tax and 0% sell tax recorded in the contract. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner cannot currently create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function or address blacklist was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers or lock specific wallets out of trading. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, which means its code cannot be swapped out later for different logic. Liquidity is recorded as 100% burned, so the liquidity pool tokens cannot be pulled by whoever provided them. However, top-10 wallets hold 100% of supply, and the holder count is listed as 1 — this points to a token that is extremely concentrated and may not yet have any real distribution or trading activity, which materially increases the risk that a single wallet's actions could move the market or that the "market" doesn't meaningfully exist yet.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is a mechanical read of the smart contract and current chain state — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether any roadmap or marketing claims are credible, how tokens are intended to be distributed over time, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists. A clean set of contract flags says nothing about the intentions of the people controlling the remaining supply, and a single holder controlling all tokens is a structural fact, not a judgement on character.
Before putting any money in, it would be worth checking the contract address directly on Etherscan to see the real-time holder list and transaction history, looking at whether a liquidity pool actually exists and has any trading volume, searching for the project's social channels and team identities independently, and checking whether the deployer wallet has a track record with other tokens. Given that holders are currently recorded as 1, it would also be sensible to look for any public statement from the project about when or how supply is meant to be released or distributed.
This check reflects conditions observed on the date it was run; contract permissions, holder distribution and liquidity status can all change afterwards, so a repeat check closer to any decision point is advisable.
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.