| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 56.7% | Holder distribution | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 3 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 337107 | Token contract | 3 Sept 2026 |
This automated check looked at the contract code and on-chain data for BNB on Ethereum and scored it 14 out of 18. In practice, this means the contract, as written, does not currently give an owner-style address the ability to mint new tokens, pause transfers, or blacklist specific wallets — those functions were not detected in the code on the date of this check. A test transaction also confirmed the token is sellable, with 0% buy and sell tax at the time of the check, meaning no hidden fee was found that would stop or penalise a sale. The contract is not upgradeable via a proxy, so its core logic cannot be silently swapped out later. The source code being verified on the block explorer means anyone can read the actual code behind the token rather than trusting an unreadable binary. On the other side, top-10 wallets hold 56.7% of supply, which is a meaningful concentration — large holders moving tokens can affect available liquidity and price regardless of what the contract code allows. Liquidity was also found to be not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could, in principle, withdraw it, which is a separate risk from anything the token contract itself controls.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it checks what the code technically permits, not who controls it, what they intend to do, or how the project is run. It says nothing about the team behind the token, their identity, track record, or whether they have a history of malicious activity elsewhere. It does not assess tokenomics design, roadmap credibility, marketing claims, or whether there is a registered legal entity standing behind the project. A clean set of contract findings does not speak to intent, and a token can score well here while still carrying risks this check has no way of seeing.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking the liquidity pool directly to see who added it and whether it can be withdrawn unilaterally, researching the team's public identity and history, and reviewing independent community discussion or audits if any exist. Re-running this kind of check periodically is also worth doing, since contract permissions and holder distribution can change over time even when the original code stays the same.
Contracts change after they are checked. Leave an email or a Telegram chat ID and we will tell you the moment this one does — taxes raised, minting switched on, liquidity unlocked. Free for three contracts, no account and no password.
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.