| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 63.5% | Holder distribution | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 25477 | Token contract | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe0e42c…3e91ae |
| Current owner | 0xcd50cf…98a577 |
| Holders | 25,477 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x1a1842…e2f9ce | 22.56% |
| #2 | 0x062e20…aeddce | 15.71% |
| #3 | 0xf97781…41acec | 11.27% |
| #4 | 0x28c6c0…f21d60 | 2.52% |
| #5 | 0x623be0…15d748 | 2.29% |
This automated check on COTI's contract on Ethereum returned a score of 12 out of 18. Here is what the individual findings mean in practical terms. The contract owner retains the ability to mint new tokens, which means the total supply can be increased at the owner's discretion; this can dilute the value of tokens already held by others. Top-10 wallets hold 63.5% of the supply, a concentration level that means a small number of addresses could sell in a way that affects the market for everyone else. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the technical ability to withdraw it, which would make the token difficult or impossible to sell on that pool. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected: the simulation showed the token is sellable, buy and sell taxes are both 0%, and no pausable transfer function or address blacklist capability was found in the contract as it stands on the date of this check. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable, and it is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning the logic cannot be silently swapped out later.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at what the code technically permits, not at who is behind the project, how tokens are distributed among the team versus the public, whether there is a lockup or vesting schedule for insiders, the legal structure of the issuing entity, or the intentions of whoever controls the owner keys. A contract can score well on mechanics and still carry risk from any of these unassessed areas, and conversely a contract with some flags raised is not automatically evidence of bad intent.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who holds the owner/admin keys and whether they are controlled by a multisig or a single wallet, checking whether there is any public statement or documentation about mint policy and future supply plans, reviewing the identities and lockup terms of the top holders where disclosed, checking the liquidity pool address directly on a block explorer to see current balances and any lock or vesting contract tied to it, and reading any audit reports if they exist, checking who performed them and when. None of this constitutes financial advice, and none of it should be treated as a guarantee of outcome.
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.