| 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 | 74.5% | Holder distribution | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 4 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 7985 | Token contract | 4 Sept 2026 |
This automated check on USDG found that the contract is built as an upgradeable proxy, which means whoever controls the admin keys can replace the underlying logic of the contract at a later date — in practice, this means the rules governing the token today are not necessarily the rules that will apply tomorrow, and holders have no way to verify in advance what a future upgrade might change. The check also found that the top ten holders control 75% of the supply, a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could move a large share of tokens at once, which can affect available liquidity and market depth. No admin mint function, transfer pause, or address blacklist was detected on the date of this check, and a transfer simulation indicated the token was sellable. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the deployed code is publicly readable, though liquidity backing the token was not found to be locked at the time of the check, which means it could in principle be withdrawn from the trading pool.
It's worth being clear about what this score does not cover. This is an automated, mechanical read of the smart contract's code and on-chain data — it looks at what the contract technically permits, not at who is behind it, why it exists, or how it is likely to be used. It does not assess the issuing team's identity or track record, the token's economic design or supply schedule, any legal or regulatory structure, custody arrangements for reserves (relevant for a token presented as a stablecoin), or the intent of the people who deployed it. A contract can score well on mechanics and still carry risks this check has no way of detecting, and conversely, flagged mechanics like an upgradeable proxy are common in legitimate infrastructure as well as in problematic ones — the flag tells you the capability exists, not how it will be used.
Before putting money into this token, it would be worth looking into who issues and governs USDG, what reserves or collateral back it and how that is attested, whether the admin/upgrade keys are held by a single party or a multisig with disclosed signers, and whether there is any public audit of the upgrade mechanism. Checking the liquidity pool directly on-chain to see current depth and lock status, reviewing the token's own documentation for its stated redemption and governance process, and searching for independent commentary or regulatory disclosures would also help build a fuller picture beyond what this contract-level check can show.
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.