| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | 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 | 57.3% | Holder distribution | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 101054 | Token contract | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xc4ad0e…4b7be4 |
| Holders | 101,054 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x5f3b5d…94e2a2 | 34.66% |
| #2 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 5.79% |
| #3 | 0x7cd7db…cc51fd | 2.89% |
| #4 | 0x300d1a…ab9d61 | 2.85% |
| #5 | 0x72402c…b0f0ad | 2.72% |
This automated check scored CRV 12 out of 18 based on contract mechanics detected on the date of the check. Here is what each finding actually means for someone holding the token. The contract's mint function is enabled, meaning whoever controls that function can create new tokens at will, which can dilute existing holders' share of supply — this does not mean it will happen, only that the mechanism to do so exists. No transfer-pausing or blacklist functions were detected, so nothing in the contract code itself lets an admin freeze a wallet or block a specific address from moving tokens, and buy/sell tax was found to be 0% with no honeypot behaviour detected in a sell simulation, meaning the token could be sold in this test. Source code being verified means the code humans can read matches what's deployed, which supports transparency but says nothing about what that code is designed to do long-term. Top-10 wallets holding 56.7% of supply is a concentration flag: if a small number of holders decide to sell together, it can move the price significantly, and it's separate from any question of who those holders are. Liquidity not being locked means whoever provided the trading pool could withdraw it, which is a structural possibility worth weighing, not a prediction that they will.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of on-chain contract code and holder data only. It says nothing about who the team behind CRV is, whether they have a track record, what their incentives are, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, or whether any legal entity stands behind the project. No human has reviewed this token, and nothing here should be read as a judgement on intent, quality, or trustworthiness — only on what the contract's mechanics allow.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking beyond this report. Check whether CRV's mint authority is held by a multisig or DAO governance process rather than a single wallet, and look at how minting has actually been used historically. Look into the identities and reputations of the top holders where that information is public, and check trading venues for actual liquidity depth rather than relying on this check alone. Reviewing independent audits, the project's governance documentation, and community discussion of past incidents can also help build a fuller picture than contract mechanics alone can 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.