| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 61.2% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1595 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x13e1c3…89ce99 |
| Current owner | None — ownership renounced |
| Holders | 1,595 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x50b07c…941a41 | 16.07% |
| #2 | 0x28b129…58e9b7 | 10.20% |
| #3 | 0xb307f5…2ec936 | 7.29% |
| #4 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0xea021f…93c3ab | 6.32% |
| #5 | 0xbd0a69…24c4d1 | 4.87% |
This automated check on DOGECOIN (ethereum) scored 14 out of 18. On the date of the check, a test transfer simulation showed the token could be sold, and buy and sell tax were both read at 0% from the contract. No minting function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, meaning transfers do not appear to be able to be switched off. No blacklist function was detected, meaning there's no evidence of a mechanism to block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not upgradeable, so the underlying code cannot be swapped out later for different logic. Two points stand out as higher risk: liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could remove it, and the top 10 wallets hold 61.2% of supply, a concentration level where coordinated selling by a small number of holders could move the price sharply. The contract's source code is verified, meaning the code behind the token is publicly viewable and matches what's deployed, which at least allows this kind of automated reading to take place.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It only reads contract mechanics as they existed at the time of scanning — it does not know who the team is, whether they are anonymous, what their track record looks like, or whether the project has any real product or roadmap behind it. It says nothing about tokenomics beyond raw holder percentages, nothing about legal structure, jurisdiction, or regulatory status, and nothing about the intent of the people who deployed it. A clean technical read does not mean the people behind a token are trustworthy, and a technically unlocked, mintable, or pausable contract does not automatically mean bad intent either — it only means the capability exists. This is an automated scan, not a human-reviewed assessment, and it reflects a single point in time; mechanics such as locks, holder distribution, or ownership can change after the check is run.
Before considering any money, it would be worth independently verifying who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange, team, or burn addresses rather than independent holders. Check directly on the relevant explorer or locker service whether liquidity has since been locked or has an expiry date, since this was unlocked at the time of this check. Look for the team's public identity, any audits by named third parties, and whether the contract ownership has been renounced or still sits with an active wallet. Searching the contract address and project name for prior community reports or warnings is also a reasonable next step before forming any view.
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.