| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No data | Transfer simulation | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 20 | Token contract | 13 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x26831a…b7aa35 |
| Holders | 20 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x26831a…b7aa35 | 99.99% |
| #2 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0x82cd1f…fe83ea | 0.00% |
| #3 · contract | 0x242dd9…995223 | 0.00% |
| #4 · contract | 0x0cc6af…d7db24 | 0.00% |
| #5 · contract | 0x19fd3c…864a1e | 0.00% |
This automated check could not confirm much about FXB because the contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer — only the raw bytecode is visible, and bytecode alone doesn't reliably tell us whether functions like minting new tokens, pausing transfers, blacklisting addresses, or applying hidden buy/sell taxes exist. That's why most of the evidence table reads "no data": it's not that these risks were ruled out, it's that the check genuinely cannot see into the contract's logic. What it did manage to confirm is more concerning on its own: the top 10 wallet addresses hold 100% of the entire token supply, across only 20 holders in total, and there is no liquidity lock in place. In practice, this combination means a small number of holders (which could include the contract deployer) can move or sell the entire supply at will, and nothing is stopping liquidity from being pulled from a trading pool at any time. A score of 0 out of 10 reflects both the absence of positive verification and the presence of these structural red flags.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It only reads contract mechanics and on-chain data as they exist at the moment of the scan — it says nothing about who the team behind FXB is, whether their stated goals or roadmap are realistic, how the tokenomics are supposed to work long-term, or whether there's any legal entity accountable for the project. No human has reviewed this token, and the check cannot assess intent, reputation, or off-chain promises made on social media or in a whitepaper.
Before putting any money toward FXB, it would be sensible to look up the contract on a block explorer yourself and see whether the team has published or verified the source code since this scan ran. Check whether the top holder wallets are known exchange or team addresses versus unknown wallets, since concentrated supply held by one or two anonymous wallets is a different situation than supply held in known, locked contracts. Look for any liquidity lock proof directly on a locker service, and search independently for the team's identity, any audits, and community discussion outside of the project's own channels. Given the lack of verified source and the extreme holder concentration found here, independent verification of these points matters more than usual.
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 10 points out of 100.
The other 90 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.