| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 71.8% | Holder distribution | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 99.9%, end date unknown | LP holders · TeamFinance | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 16960 | Token contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x3bcd9e…0a41f6 |
| Holders | 16,960 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x4cc0fa…a00d20 | 27.25% |
| #2 · contract | 0x4f4495…8d56a5 | 25.54% |
| #3 · contract | 0x3265bf…7bfa35 | 3.71% |
| #4 | 0xb0a3a2…7e4411 | 3.29% |
| #5 | 0xccb875…eb6291 | 2.47% |
This automated check on ZIG (ZigCoin) scored 13 out of 18, and on the date of the check the contract showed no admin mint function, no ability to pause transfers, no address blacklist, and no upgradeable proxy pattern — meaning the code as read does not currently give the owner those specific levers over holders' tokens. Buy and sell tax were both recorded at 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, which is a basic check for so-called honeypot behaviour where a token can be bought but not sold; no such behaviour was detected here. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, so the code that generated these results is publicly readable rather than hidden. Liquidity was found to be 99.9% locked, which reduces (though does not eliminate) the ability to pull trading liquidity out abruptly. The one figure worth sitting with is that the top 10 holders control 71.8% of supply — a concentration this high means a small number of wallets could move the market significantly if they sold, regardless of what the contract code allows or restricts.
It's important to be clear about what this score does not cover. This check reads contract mechanics only: it looks at what the code technically permits or blocks, and what a snapshot of holder and liquidity data shows today. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how tokens are allocated or scheduled to unlock, whether there's a working product or roadmap, or whether any marketing claims made about the token are accurate. A contract can score well on mechanics while the people or entity controlling it behave in ways no automated scan can detect, and conversely a lower score doesn't automatically mean bad intent — it means specific technical risk indicators were or weren't found.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking at who holds those top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking whether and when the liquidity lock expires, reading any available audit reports in full rather than trusting a summary, searching for the team's public identity and history, and reviewing the token's stated distribution and vesting schedule. None of this constitutes investment advice, and nothing here predicts how the token will perform.
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.