| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 10.2% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% burned | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 947 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x813f97…ce4d22 |
| Holders | 947 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x000000…e08a90 | 1.48% |
| #2 | 0xce0d33…ea5ac0 | 1.19% |
| #3 | 0x83dc0a…622a9c | 1.06% |
| #4 | 0x6e6f69…242dbc | 1.06% |
| #5 | 0x0ae60e…8c12f4 | 1.00% |
This automated check of ELON2028 on Ethereum returned a score of 18 out of 18, meaning that, as of the date of this scan, none of the contract mechanics it tests for were detected. In practical terms: a sell simulation went through, so the contract did not block transactions at the time of testing. Buy and sell tax are both set at 0%, so no hidden fee was found that would siphon value on each trade. No admin mint function was detected, which means the contract owner does not appear to hold a coded ability to create new tokens and dilute holders. Transfers are not pausable and no blacklist function was found, so the owner does not appear to have a built-in switch to freeze the contract or lock out specific wallets. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out later for different behaviour without deploying a new contract entirely. Source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic behind these findings can be read by anyone. Liquidity is reported as 100% burned, which means the liquidity pool tokens were sent to a dead address rather than held by a wallet that could withdraw them. Top-10 holders control 10.2% of supply across 947 holders, a relatively distributed spread compared to many newly listed tokens.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate who is behind the project, whether marketing claims match reality, how tokenomics are structured beyond what's on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the team's intentions are. A clean mechanical result does not speak to whether a project is being run honestly, whether it has real utility, or whether its promotional claims are accurate. No human has reviewed this token; the result reflects automated pattern-matching against a fixed set of contract behaviours only.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth independently verifying the contract address matches the one promoted by the project's official channels, since impersonator tokens with similar names are common. Check whether the liquidity lock or burn can be confirmed directly on a block explorer rather than taken at face value. Look into who the team is, whether they are publicly identifiable, and what track record they have. Review how tokens are distributed beyond the top 10 holders, including any team or treasury allocations and vesting terms. Search independently for any community discussion, audits by named third parties, or past incidents tied to the contract or its deployer wallet.
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.