| 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 | 59.6% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 562 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x2ecb78…e17e0f |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 562 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0xb3716d…da07fc | 20.71% |
| #2 · contract | 0x5b4e86…fc9a6e | 6.58% |
| #3 · contract | 0x2f6180…27e5bd | 6.30% |
| #4 · contract | 0x7d7302…64e39f | 4.76% |
| #5 | 0x45ed7a…949a16 | 3.93% |
This automated check found that EFUN's contract allows selling, with no buy or sell tax detected, and no admin mint, transfer-pausing, blacklist, or upgradeable proxy function present at the time of the check. In practical terms, this means the contract owner was not found to hold the ability to block holders from selling, to create new tokens out of thin air, to freeze transfers, to blacklist specific wallets, or to silently swap the contract logic for something else. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the code behind the token is publicly readable and matches what is deployed, rather than being hidden. Two points stand out as higher risk: the top 10 holders control 59.6% of the supply, which is a concentrated distribution, and the liquidity backing the token is not locked, meaning whoever supplied that liquidity could withdraw it from the pool at a time of their choosing, which can sharply affect the ability to sell at a reasonable price even though no honeypot behaviour was detected.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team has a history of delivering on other tokens, how the tokenomics are structured beyond what's visible on-chain, whether there is any legal entity or regulatory registration attached, or what the stated intentions of the deployer are. No human has reviewed this token, and a clean set of contract-level findings does not speak to the motives or competence of the people running it.
Before putting any money toward this token, it would be worth looking at where and when the liquidity was added and by which wallet, since unlocked liquidity means that wallet can remove it unilaterally. It's also worth looking more closely at who the top holders are — whether they are exchange wallets, team wallets, or unrelated individual holders — since high concentration in a single project wallet carries different implications than concentration spread across unrelated addresses. Checking the project's public communications, any audit reports from named third parties, and the history of the deploying wallet on a block explorer would also add context that this contract-level check cannot provide.
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.