| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 54.1% | Holder distribution | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 189985 | Token contract | 22 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa3b2d1…67df72 |
| Holders | 189,985 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x1743df…f27440 | 14.95% |
| #2 | 0x206376…e0fd43 | 9.84% |
| #3 | 0xdb63d4…d97303 | 5.33% |
| #4 | 0xba7f8b…7a5eaf | 4.87% |
| #5 | 0x58485e…293b16 | 4.78% |
This automated check looked at ZRX's contract code and on-chain data as they stood on the check date, and scored 14 out of 18. In practical terms, the simulation found the token could be sold (no honeypot behaviour was detected), and both buy and sell tax are set at 0%, meaning no hidden fee is currently coded into transfers. No admin mint function was found, so the contract does not appear to let anyone create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. Transfers cannot be paused and there is no blacklist function present, meaning the owner does not currently have a coded ability to freeze the contract or block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its logic cannot be swapped out for different code after the fact. Two points do stand out: the top 10 wallets hold 54.1% of supply, which is a high concentration that could allow coordinated large sales to move the market significantly, and the liquidity backing this token's trading pair is not locked, meaning whoever controls that liquidity retains the ability to withdraw it. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which at least means the logic is publicly readable rather than hidden.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It reads contract mechanics only — the functions written into the code and a snapshot of holder and liquidity data. It says nothing about the team behind the project, whether they are identifiable or anonymous, how tokens are allocated or vested, any legal or regulatory status, or the intent behind how this token will be used or promoted. A contract can look clean mechanically while the surrounding project still carries these other, unassessed risks, and vice versa.
Before putting money in, it's worth digging into who holds that concentrated 54.1% and whether any of it is exchange or team wallets rather than independent holders, since large coordinated wallets behave differently from broadly distributed ones. Look into who controls the unlocked liquidity and whether there's any stated plan or history regarding it. Check whether the project has any public team information, audits from independent security firms, and a track record you can verify independently rather than relying solely on this automated read of the contract.
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.