| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes | Contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
This automated check on United Stables (U) came back with a score of 11 out of 18, based on contract mechanics read directly from the blockchain and block explorer on the date of the check. The most significant finding is that the contract uses an upgradeable proxy pattern, which means the logic controlling how the token behaves can be replaced by whoever holds the upgrade key — in practice, this gives the contract owner the ability to change the rules of the token after you hold it, including introducing behaviours that were not present at the time of your purchase. No admin minting function, transfer-pausing mechanism, or address blacklist was detected in the current contract code, and a transfer simulation did not detect honeypot-style selling restrictions. However, top-10 holder concentration was found to be 100%, and the holder count returned by the token contract was 1, which is an unusually concentrated distribution for a token that has not yet seen wide circulation — this does not tell you why concentration is high, only that it is.
It is worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract code and on-chain data only; it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether there is a legal entity behind it, or what the stated purpose and disclosures are. Source code being verified on the explorer means the code is publicly readable and matches what is deployed — it is not a statement about the intentions of whoever wrote it or the soundness of its design. A high score on a mechanical check like this one is not a substitute for due diligence on the people and structure behind a token.
Before putting any money in, it would be reasonable to look at who controls the upgrade key for the proxy contract and whether that control sits with a single wallet, a multi-signature setup, or a time-locked governance process — this materially affects how much power one party has over the token going forward. It's also worth investigating why holder concentration is currently at 100% with a single holder recorded: this may reflect a token that has not yet been distributed, or it may reflect something else entirely, and the on-chain data alone does not distinguish between these. Reviewing any available team information, audit reports from third parties, published tokenomics, and official project communications would give context that this contract-level check cannot provide.
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.