| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 19.9% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100%, end date unknown | LP holders · TeamFinance | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 217 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xfcb017…4bf81e |
| Holders | 217 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV3 · contract | 0xfece8f…0d9387 | 12.32% |
| #2 | 0x8460dd…dabb3f | 1.09% |
| #3 | 0x1bcfa0…1b1c0b | 0.91% |
| #4 | 0x3309f8…8357ee | 0.86% |
| #5 | 0x989fe5…55e6c3 | 0.80% |
This automated check looked at LUMINA's contract mechanics on Ethereum and found no honeypot behaviour was detected: a transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, and both the buy and sell tax are set to 0%. No admin minting function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze all transfers. No blacklist function was found, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable, which means the code governing these behaviours cannot be swapped out later for something stricter. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code is publicly readable rather than hidden. Liquidity is reported as 100% locked, though the lock's end date is unknown, which matters because once a lock expires the provider could in theory withdraw that liquidity. Top-10 wallets hold 19.9% of supply across 217 holders, which is a moderate concentration figure worth keeping in mind rather than a red or green light on its own.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads only the contract's code and on-chain data as they existed at the time of the scan. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a history of other tokens, how the token's economics are designed to play out over time, whether there are legal or regulatory obligations attached to it, or what the people controlling it actually intend to do. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, an inactive team, or marketing that overstates what the token does.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who the team is and whether they're publicly identifiable, checking the liquidity lock directly on the lock provider's site (TeamFinance, in this case) to see the actual unlock date rather than relying on "unknown," reviewing the token's stated purpose and whether trading volume and holder growth look organic, and searching independently for any community discussion, audits, or prior incidents tied to the project or its deployer address. None of this replaces your own judgement, and this result reflects conditions at the time of the check only — it can change.
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.