| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 86.1% | Holder distribution | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 17801 | Token contract | 2 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x548dac…4c93dc |
| Holders | 17,801 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xbe8e3e…7e98fb | 47.88% |
| #2 · contract | 0x3300f1…6af8c4 | 9.54% |
| #3 · contract | 0xc6132f…d8f8fd | 7.43% |
| #4 · contract | 0x46dce5…7d5847 | 6.00% |
| #5 · contract | 0x173e31…79f3af | 3.71% |
This automated check on SPK (Spark, Ethereum) returned 11 out of 18, and three findings are worth translating into plain terms. First, the contract owner can mint new supply. In practice, this means whoever controls the contract could create additional tokens at will, which can increase total supply and dilute the value of tokens already held, unless this permission is later renounced or restricted by a time-lock or multisig arrangement that this check does not evaluate. Second, the top 10 holders control 85.7% of supply. High concentration like this means a small number of wallets could sell large amounts at once, which can move the price sharply, and it also means governance or market behaviour may be shaped by a handful of parties rather than a broad base of holders. Third, the contract source is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code behind the token is publicly readable and matches what's deployed, which allows this kind of automated review to take place at all — this is a positive transparency signal but not a guarantee about how those functions will be used. Separately, no transfer pausing, no address blacklist function, and no upgradeable proxy pattern were detected on the date of this check, and the token was sellable in a simulated transfer.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not tell you. It reads contract mechanics only — the literal code and permissions embedded in the smart contract. It does not assess the team behind the token, their identity or track record, the project's tokenomics or supply schedule, any legal structure, marketing claims, or intent. A contract can look mechanically unremarkable and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals, and conversely, some flagged permissions exist for legitimate operational reasons. No mint or concentration flag on this list should be read as a statement about whether the people running this project intend to use those permissions responsibly.
Before putting money in, it's worth checking who currently holds the minting permission and whether it's controlled by a single wallet, a multisig, or has been renounced entirely — this is often visible on the block explorer under contract owner or admin. Look at whether the top holder wallets are exchange or liquidity pool addresses (lower concern) versus unlabelled individual wallets (higher concern). Review the project's own documentation, audit reports if any exist, and where liquidity is held and whether it's locked. Buy and sell tax data was not available in this check, so it's worth testing with a small transaction first or checking a block explorer's simulation tools directly.
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.