| 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 |
| Top-10 holders | 32% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2521 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xaf97ab…051bf5 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 2,521 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0x62eae8…946475 | 13.98% |
| #2 · contract | 0xec70ff…15029e | 2.82% |
| #3 · contract | 0xa674aa…f6dca7 | 2.12% |
| #4 · contract | 0x1f2f10…6df387 | 2.08% |
| #5 · contract | 0x70fb40…e092ba | 2.02% |
This automated check scanned AIB's contract mechanics on Ethereum and scored 17 out of 18. In practical terms, a transfer simulation on the date of the check found the token sellable, with no honeypot behaviour detected. Buy and sell tax were both read from the contract as 0%, meaning no hidden fee siphons off value on each trade. No admin mint function was found, so the owner does not appear able to create new tokens and dilute holders at will. Transfers were not found to be pausable, and no address blacklist function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not currently have a built-in mechanism to freeze the token or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not upgradeable via a proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out after the fact by whoever deployed it. The source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the actual logic is publicly readable rather than hidden. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, which means the liquidity pool tokens have been sent to a dead address and cannot be withdrawn by the deployer to drain the trading pool. Holder concentration sits at 32% among the top 10 wallets, which is a moderate concentration indicator worth weighing, out of 2,521 holders recorded at the time of the check.
None of this tells you who is behind the project, what their intentions are, or whether the stated tokenomics match reality. This check reads contract code and on-chain state only; it does not assess the team's identity or track record, marketing claims, roadmap credibility, legal structure, or whether the project has any real utility behind it. A contract can score well on every mechanical check and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or a team that abandons it later. A missing flag means that behaviour was not detected at the time of scanning, not that it is permanently absent — contracts can sometimes be reconfigured, and conditions can change after this check was run.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who holds the top wallets and whether any single address beyond the known liquidity-burn address holds an outsized share, since 32% in the top 10 is worth tracing individually. Check whether the team is public or pseudonymous, look for independent commentary or audits beyond this automated scan, and review the project's stated purpose against its actual contract permissions. Confirm the liquidity lock or burn transaction directly on the block explorer rather than relying on any single source. This information is a mechanical snapshot, not a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid the token.
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.