| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 24.7% | Holder distribution | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1255 | Token contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x733d12…a5ae54 |
| Current owner | 0x733d12…a5ae54 |
| Holders | 1,255 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x67b9d0…4f781d | 4.86% |
| #2 · contract | 0xa795d3…ebfcbc | 2.79% |
| #3 · contract | 0x71cf3f…e7fe33 | 2.74% |
| #4 | 0x4695bf…e17861 | 2.71% |
| #5 | 0xeadc64…c8b346 | 2.69% |
The automated check on APU (ApuApustajas) came back with a score of 17 out of 18, and each of the findings translates into a specific practical point about what the contract lets its owner do. No admin mint function was detected, meaning that, as of the date of this check, there is no visible mechanism for new tokens to be created and dilute existing holders. Transfers were not found to be pausable, so the ability to freeze trading for all holders was not identified. No address blacklist function was detected, indicating no mechanism was found that would allow specific wallets to be blocked from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable through a proxy, meaning its core logic cannot be swapped out later by the deployer. A transfer simulation showed the token to be sellable, which is a basic but meaningful check, since some contracts pass every other test but still block sales in practice. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the logic is publicly readable rather than hidden. Holder concentration sits at 24.7% among the top ten wallets, across 1,255 holders — a moderate concentration level, worth keeping in view rather than an automatic red flag.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at code behaviour, not people or plans. It says nothing about who the team behind APU is, whether they are anonymous, whether liquidity is locked, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there is a functioning roadmap, or whether any marketing claims made about the project are accurate. A contract can score well on every mechanical test here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, concentrated insider ownership dressed up across several wallets, or no real intent to deliver on its stated goals. None of that is visible from bytecode alone.
Before acting on this information, it's worth looking at the liquidity pool directly to see whether it is locked or held by an identifiable, time-locked contract, checking whether the top holder wallets are exchanges, burn addresses, or unlabelled individual wallets, and reviewing the token's trading history for unusual volume spikes or gaps. Looking into the team's public presence, any audits beyond automated contract scans, and community discussion for recurring complaints (such as failed sales despite a "sellable" contract flag) can also add useful context. This check is one input among several, not a verdict, and it reflects conditions observed on the date it was run rather than a permanent state.
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.