| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Enabled | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 49.6% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 15665734 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x369285…927d57 |
| Current owner | 0xc6cde7…1ea828 |
| Holders | 15,665,734 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf97781…41acec | 18.12% |
| #2 | 0x47ac0f…a6d503 | 10.40% |
| #3 | 0x835678…bb0007 | 5.75% |
| #4 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 4.39% |
| #5 · contract | 0x6c96de…a41dee | 3.52% |
This automated check scanned the verified contract code for USDT on Ethereum and found several functions that give the contract owner direct control over the token. The owner can mint new supply, meaning the total number of tokens in circulation can be increased at any time. Transfers can be paused, which means the owner has the technical ability to stop some or all token movement across the network temporarily. The contract supports blacklisting, so specific wallet addresses can be blocked from sending or receiving the token. The owner can also change balances directly, which means token amounts held in a wallet can be adjusted without a transfer being initiated by the holder. None of this means these powers are being misused, or will be used, only that the code allows for it. Separately, the check found that transfers executed successfully in simulation (no honeypot behaviour was detected), buy and sell tax are both 0%, and the contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning the logic cannot be silently swapped for different code later. Top-10 wallets hold 49.5% of supply, which is a concentration level worth noting given how spread across 15.6 million holders the rest of the supply is.
It's worth being clear about what this type of check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — the literal permissions and functions written into the code. It says nothing about who controls the owner wallet, whether that control is distributed across multiple parties, how reserves backing the token are managed, or any legal or regulatory status the issuer operates under. A contract can score well on mechanics while the organisation behind it carries risks that no code scanner can see, and conversely a token with owner powers like these can be operated conservatively for years. This check cannot assess intent, competence, or financial health, only what the contract technically permits.
Before relying on any findings here, it's worth looking at who actually holds the owner/admin keys and whether that control sits with a single key, a multisignature wallet, or a more distributed governance process, since that materially changes what "owner can mint" or "owner can blacklist" means in practice. It's also worth checking the project's own transparency material — audit reports, attestations, or disclosures about reserves if the token is meant to represent an off-chain asset — and looking at independent commentary or news about how these owner powers have actually been used historically. Reviewing the top-10 holder addresses individually, to see whether they are exchange or custody wallets rather than private individuals, can also change how the concentration figure should be read.
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.