| 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 | 93.4% | Holder distribution | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 16754 | Token contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
This automated check found that USDS is deployed as an upgradeable proxy contract, which means the address you hold tokens at can have its underlying logic replaced by whoever controls the upgrade key. In practice, this gives that controller the ability to change how the contract behaves after the fact — including introducing functions that were not present at the time of this check, such as new transfer restrictions or fee mechanisms — without holders needing to approve anything or move to a new contract. No admin mint function, transfer pause, or address blacklist was detected in the current contract code as of the check date, and a transfer simulation showed the token can be sold. However, because the contract is upgradeable, these results describe the code as it exists right now, not necessarily how it will behave in future. Source code being verified on the block explorer means the current logic is publicly readable and was not obscured, which supports the ability to review it, but does not by itself limit what an upgrade could later introduce. Separately, the top ten holder addresses control 93.4% of total supply, meaning a small number of wallets — which may include exchange, treasury, or protocol-controlled addresses — hold the large majority of tokens, and liquidity was not found to be locked, so whoever provided it could in principle withdraw it from the trading pool.
None of this speaks to who is behind USDS, how it is meant to be used, whether it is backed by anything, or whether the team's stated intentions match the code's technical capabilities. This is a mechanical read of contract functions and on-chain data only — it does not assess business model, regulatory status, custody arrangements, or the reputation and track record of the people operating it. A high or low score here reflects contract-level permissions and concentration metrics detected on the check date, not an opinion on the project as a whole.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who controls the upgrade key and whether it sits behind a multisig or timelock, reviewing whether the top holder addresses are known entities such as exchanges or a treasury rather than unrelated private wallets, checking independently whether the liquidity pool backing this token elsewhere has any lock or vesting arrangement, and reading any public documentation, audits, or disclosures the issuer has published about backing, reserves, or governance. Cross-referencing holder addresses on the block explorer and searching for independent audit reports are both concrete next steps available to anyone before deciding how to proceed.
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.