| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0.3% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0.3% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 68.3% | Holder distribution | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 78.9% until 20 Nov 2286 | LP holders · UNCX | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 100764 | Token contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa99c60…345b9b |
| Current owner | 0x000000…00dead |
| Holders | 100,764 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 44.60% |
| #2 · contract | 0xb8d247…f4ee43 | 9.60% |
| #3 | 0x76ec5a…78fbd3 | 4.26% |
| #4 | 0xc882b1…84f071 | 2.01% |
| #5 | 0x43684d…26f042 | 1.89% |
This automated check of the FLOKI contract on Ethereum returned a score of 11 out of 18, based on mechanics that were detectable in the contract code on the date of the check. A few points are worth translating into plain terms. The contract applies a transfer tax of up to 0.3% on buys and sells, meaning a small percentage of each trade is deducted automatically. More significantly, the check found that the owner can change balances directly — this is a function that, if used, would let whoever controls the owner address alter how many tokens an address holds without that holder's involvement. No admin mint function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, and no blacklist capability were detected, meaning those specific levers were not found in the code as it stands. Liquidity was found to be 78.9% locked until a date far in the future, and the contract source is verified on the block explorer, which allows the underlying code to be read by anyone. Holder concentration is high, with the top 10 wallets controlling 68.3% of supply — a factor that affects how much influence a small number of addresses can have over price if they choose to sell.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — the literal functions and permissions written into the code, plus what's publicly visible about liquidity locks and holder distribution. It says nothing about who the team behind the token is, whether their stated intentions match their actions, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists around the project. A contract can look clean mechanically while the people behind it behave in ways no code scan would catch, and conversely, flagged functions don't necessarily mean harm is intended. No claim is made here about trustworthiness, legitimacy, or future performance.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth looking into who holds the owner/admin keys and whether that control sits with a multisig, a timelock, or a single private key, since that affects how the balance-change function could be used. Checking whether the liquidity lock is verifiable directly on the locking platform (UNCX, in this case), reviewing the distribution of the top 10 wallets individually, and searching for any independent commentary, audits, or community discussion about the project would also add useful 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.