| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 32% | Holder distribution | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Holders | 50 | Token contract | 1 Nov 2026 |
| Holders | 50 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 5.66% |
| #2 | 0x620748…ff4498 | 3.26% |
| #3 | 0x1dc1cc…5209b0 | 3.16% |
| #4 | 0x222244…10dad2 | 3.07% |
| #5 | 0xa94071…b7dd35 | 2.99% |
This automated check looked at SNOWMOON's contract code and current on-chain data, and scored 17 out of 18 on the mechanics it tests for. In practical terms: a transfer simulation found the token can be sold, and both buy and sell tax are set at 0%, so on the date of this check there was no indication of a honeypot (a contract that lets you buy but blocks or heavily taxes selling). No admin mint function was detected, meaning the owner does not appear to have a built-in way to create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was found, so transfers do not appear to be haltable by the owner. No blacklist function was detected, meaning there is no on-chain mechanism found that would let the owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out later by whoever controls it. Liquidity is recorded as 100% burned, which means the tokens representing trading liquidity have been sent to an address no one controls, reducing (though not eliminating) the risk of that liquidity being pulled. Source code is verified, so the logic above is readable and this check could inspect actual code rather than guesswork. The one point off relates to holder concentration: the top 10 wallets hold 32% of supply across only 50 holders, which is a small, concentrated holder base — large sales from these wallets could affect the market.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract code and on-chain state only. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team is doxxed or anonymous, how tokens were allocated or vested, what the stated use case is, whether there's a working product, or whether the marketing and intent behind the token are honest. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals or misleading claims — mechanics and intent are separate questions.
Before putting money in, it would be reasonable to look at who holds the top wallets and whether any look like team or exchange addresses, check whether the liquidity burn transaction is verifiable on the explorer and matches the pool address, look for a published team, audit, or community presence, and search independently for any prior reports or discussion of this specific contract address. None of this check's findings should be read as a recommendation to buy or hold.
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.