| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 97.3% | Holder distribution | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1243 | Token contract | 9 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 5 Jun 2026 — 97 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x2d4536…aa0467 |
| Deployed by | 0x22b188…8179bf |
| Holders | 1,243 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x7df5e4…2320f1 | 29.10% |
| #2 | 0xa278c6…79dda0 | 19.90% |
| #3 | 0x8a7804…631379 | 19.00% |
| #4 | 0x66296d…fca14c | 17.18% |
| #5 | 0xbed1eb…1111f6 | 5.93% |
This automated check of the GRVT contract on Ethereum scored 12 out of 18, and it is worth understanding what that number does and does not capture. On the positive side, no admin minting function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear to hold a coded ability to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute existing holders. No transfer-pausing mechanism was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze the token contract and stop trading network-wide. No blacklist function was detected either, which would otherwise let an address be singled out and blocked from selling. Buy and sell taxes were both read as 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is currently sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of the check. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be silently swapped out later. However, two findings stand out as risk indicators. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool tokens retains the practical ability to withdraw the paired funds at any time, which can leave buyers holding a token with no market to sell into. Separately, the top ten holders control 97.3% of supply, an extremely high concentration that means a small number of wallets could move the price substantially by selling, regardless of what the contract code allows or forbids.
It is important to be clear about the limits of this check. It reads contract mechanics only: what the code technically permits or forbids, and what a snapshot of holder and liquidity data shows on the date of the check. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team's stated intentions match their actions, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, or whether any legal or regulatory structure sits behind the token. A clean mechanical read does not mean a project is sound, and flagged items do not mean it is fraudulent; they simply describe what the contract allows an owner or large holder to do.
Before putting money into GRVT, it would be worth looking into who holds the liquidity pool tokens and whether there is any public commitment or timelock around them, since liquidity is currently unlocked. It is also worth reviewing the wallets among the top ten holders to see whether they are linked to exchanges, team allocations, or vesting contracts, given how concentrated supply is. Beyond the contract itself, checking for a public team, an audit from a reputable firm, community activity, and how the token's liquidity and volume behave over several days rather than a single snapshot would all add useful context that this automated check does not provide.
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.