| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 96.3% | Holder distribution | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 47720 | Token contract | 7 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 17 Oct 2020 — 2,152 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0xb0dea3…349d21 |
| Deployed by | 0x03e3bf…76b4ad |
| Holders | 47,720 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xf955c5…bad6f3 | 94.77% |
| #2 | 0xafcd96…45c5da | 0.60% |
| #3 | 0xf89d7b…5eaa40 | 0.37% |
| #4 | 0x6ddd27…4c95e2 | 0.14% |
| #5 | 0x7f604d…81b752 | 0.11% |
This automated check on INJ found no honeypot behaviour, meaning simulated transfers completed without the token blocking sales, and both buy and sell tax were measured at 0%. No admin mint function was detected, so on the date of this check there was no visible contract mechanism allowing new tokens to be created at will. No transfer-pausing function and no address blacklist function were detected either, which means the contract does not appear to give its owner a built-in way to freeze the token or lock out specific wallets. The contract is not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out later through that particular route, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows anyone to read what the contract actually does rather than relying on marketing claims. Two things stand out as risk indicators: the top 10 holders control 96.3% of supply, a highly concentrated distribution where large wallets moving tokens could affect price significantly, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool retains the ability to withdraw it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is a purely mechanical read of the contract code and on-chain data as they existed at the time of the scan — it says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team's identity is known or verifiable, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there is a whitepaper or roadmap that matches reality, or whether any legal entity stands behind the token. A contract can look clean on every one of these technical checks and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, undisclosed insider allocations, or no real intention of long-term development. Conversely, some legitimate projects retain admin functions for genuine operational reasons. Technical cleanliness and trustworthiness are not the same thing.
Before considering any transaction, it would be sensible to look into who holds those top-10 wallets and whether they are known exchange or team addresses rather than anonymous individuals, to check the liquidity pool directly on-chain and see whether it has any lock or vesting schedule attached, to look for a public team, audit reports from independent firms, and any history or track record tied to this specific contract address. Reading community discussion critically, checking whether the contract address matches official project channels, and never relying on a single automated score as the sole basis for a decision are all reasonable next steps.
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.