| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 93.4% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1400 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x22b188…8179bf |
| Holders | 1,400 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x7df5e4…2320f1 | 26.13% |
| #2 · contract | 0xa278c6…79dda0 | 19.92% |
| #3 · contract | 0x8a7804…631379 | 19.02% |
| #4 · contract | 0x66296d…fca14c | 17.20% |
| #5 · contract | 0xbed1eb…1111f6 | 4.54% |
This automated check scanned GRVT's contract code and current on-chain state, and scored 12 out of 18. A few things are worth translating into plain terms. An automated sell simulation completed successfully on the date of the check, and no buy or sell tax was detected, meaning the contract did not appear to block or skim transactions at that time — this is not a guarantee that will remain the case if the contract is upgradeable or if taxes can be changed by the owner. No admin minting function was detected, which would otherwise let the owner create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, which would otherwise let the owner freeze transfers. No blacklist function was detected, which would otherwise let the owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out later by the deployer. The contract source is verified, so the code behind these results is publicly readable. Two findings stand out as higher-risk indicators: the top 10 holders control 93.3% of total supply, which is a high concentration that gives a small number of wallets the ability to move the market significantly if they sell, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool can withdraw it at any time, which can sharply reduce or eliminate the ability to sell.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — the functions written into the code and the current holder and liquidity data pulled from the chain. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the token's supply and incentives are structured, whether there is a legal entity attached, or what the stated intentions for the project are. A clean mechanical result does not speak to any of that, and a concerning one does not confirm bad intent either — it simply flags where the contract or current holder structure carries more risk.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who controls it and whether it could be withdrawn, researching the team's public identity and history, reading any available audit reports in full rather than relying on a summary, and checking community channels for independent discussion of the token's behaviour over time rather than relying on the project's own marketing.
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.