| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 64.2% | Holder distribution | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1692217 | Token contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 31 Jul 2020 — 2,228 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x0a4022…fb7363 |
| Deployed by | 0xb8f226…0dfa08 |
| Holders | 1,692,217 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Dead | 0xdead00…942069 | 41.04% |
| #2 | 0x02e220…4b481e | 6.23% |
| #3 | 0x40b387…18e489 | 4.78% |
| #4 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 3.76% |
| #5 | 0xa023f0…fc947e | 2.74% |
This automated check looked at how the SHIB contract is built and how it behaves, not at whether the token is a good idea. On the findings that matter most for a holder's ability to move their own funds: the transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, and both buy and sell tax are recorded at 0%, meaning no fee mechanism was detected that would siphon value on trades as of the date of this check. No admin minting function was detected, so nothing here suggests the contract owner can create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so nothing here suggests transfers can be frozen network-wide by an admin. No blacklist function was detected, so nothing here suggests individual wallets can be blocked from transacting. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out for different code after the fact. Contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows the underlying code to be read by anyone rather than relying on unreviewed bytecode. The two points that stand out are that liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity position retains the ability to withdraw it, and that the top 10 wallets hold 64.2% of supply, which is a concentration level that means a small number of holders could move large amounts and affect available liquidity or price if they chose to sell.
None of this speaks to who runs the project, how the token was allocated at launch, whether there are vesting schedules, marketing claims, or any legal structure behind it. A contract can score well on mechanical checks like this one while still carrying risk from concentrated ownership, unlocked liquidity, or decisions made off-chain by whoever holds admin or liquidity control. This check does not assess intent, team background, or tokenomics design, and it does not verify that the wallets behind the top holdings are unrelated to each other or to the project itself.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking at who holds the liquidity pool tokens and under what terms, checking whether the top-10 wallets include known exchange or team addresses versus unrelated outside holders, reviewing the project's own disclosures on token distribution and vesting, and checking whether liquidity lock or ownership renouncement has occurred since this check was run, since on-chain conditions can change after the date shown here.
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.