| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 18 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xedac36…abe052 |
| Holders | 18 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 99.02% |
| #2 | 0xd74243…3e8109 | 9.80% |
| #3 | 0xc85af2…07cf38 | 8.03% |
| #4 | 0xa979e1…ab1d5e | 6.28% |
| #5 | 0x945a60…b357c2 | 4.86% |
This automated check looked at the LOXLEY contract's code and a simulated transaction on Ethereum, and found no honeypot behaviour, no mint function that would let the owner create new tokens out of thin air, no pause switch that could freeze transfers, no blacklist function that could block specific wallets from trading, and no upgradeable proxy pattern that would let the underlying logic be swapped out later. Buy and sell tax both came back at 0%, and a simulated sell went through, meaning the contract did not block a sale on the date of the check. The source code is also verified on the block explorer, so what's published matches what's deployed, which means these claims can at least be checked by reading the code rather than taking the project's word for it. Taken together, these are all mechanics an owner could otherwise use to disadvantage holders, and none were detected here on this date.
What this check does not tell you is almost as important as what it does. It says nothing about who controls the deployer wallet or any admin keys, whether that control is renounced, held by a multisig, or sitting with one person. It says nothing about tokenomics — how supply is distributed, whether a small number of wallets can move the market, or whether liquidity is locked and for how long. With only 18 holders on record, concentration is almost certainly high by default, though this check does not calculate exact percentages held by top wallets. It also says nothing about the team's identity, track record, marketing claims, or legal structure, and absolutely nothing about whether the project will deliver on any stated purpose. A clean contract scan is a statement about code behaviour on the day it was run, not a judgement on the people or intentions behind the token.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking at the holder list directly on the block explorer to see how concentrated ownership actually is, checking whether liquidity is locked or held by the deployer, and looking at whether the contract owner or admin functions have been renounced. It's also worth searching for the team or project elsewhere — official channels, any audits beyond this automated one, and independent discussion of the token outside of its own promotional material. None of this replaces your own judgement, and nothing here should be read as advice to buy, sell, 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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.