| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 4% | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 64.2% | Holder distribution | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 142982 | Token contract | 25 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbe7c3d…d4bc25 |
| Current owner | 0xfe6bb1…cc2fcd |
| Holders | 142,982 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 55.41% |
| #2 · contract | 0x50f9e3…5e3113 | 3.40% |
| #3 | 0xfe6bb1…cc2fcd | 1.22% |
| #4 · contract | 0x409353…c20782 | 1.04% |
| #5 | 0xd89281…632b40 | 0.76% |
This automated check scanned SAITAMA's contract code and on-chain data on the date shown, and scored it 13 out of 18. A sell transfer simulation completed without detecting honeypot behaviour, meaning tokens could be sold in that test. A transfer tax of up to 4% was found, which means a cut of each transaction can be redirected on the way through; the contract does not show the sell tax rate separately, so it was not confirmed whether buying and selling are taxed at the same rate. No admin mint function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, no address blacklist capability, and no upgradeable proxy pattern were detected, meaning this check found no evidence the owner can create new tokens out of thin air, freeze transfers, block specific wallets, or swap the contract's logic after the fact. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows this kind of automated review and public inspection in the first place.
Two findings stand out as risk indicators. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, potentially leaving holders unable to sell at a meaningful price even though no honeypot code was found. Separately, the top 10 wallet addresses hold 64.2% of the circulating supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could move large amounts of the token at once, with outsized effect on price.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only: tax rates, mint/pause/blacklist functions, proxy patterns, holder distribution, and liquidity lock status. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team's identity is known or verifiable, how the token's supply and incentives are structured, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the team's intentions are. A clean contract-mechanics read does not mean the people running the project are trustworthy, and a flagged finding does not by itself mean the project is fraudulent.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth independently verifying the liquidity pool's lock status directly on a chain explorer or lock-checking service, looking at how the top holder wallets were built up and whether they're linked to exchanges or the team, researching who is publicly associated with the project and what track record they have, and reading the contract's tax logic yourself or asking someone who can, since the sell tax rate was not captured by this check.
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.