| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 100% | Holder distribution | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1 | Token contract | 21 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xafc97f…e47538 |
| Current owner | 0x694fa0…33c4e6 |
| Holders | 1 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x694fa0…33c4e6 | 100.00% |
This automated check found that the HEMI contract on Ethereum allows the owner to mint new tokens at will, meaning the total supply is not fixed and the owner can increase it without needing holder approval. In practice, this gives whoever controls the admin functions the ability to create new tokens and change the supply dynamics that existing holders were relying on when they bought in. Separately, the check found that the top ten holders control 100% of the supply, and the holder count returned is just one address — this points to the tokens not yet being meaningfully distributed to a broader market. No honeypot behaviour was detected in transfer simulation, buy and sell tax were both read as 0%, and no pausable-transfer or blacklist functions were found in the contract at the time of this check. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable, though verification alone does not indicate whether the code's behaviour is favourable to holders.
This check reads contract mechanics only — it simulates transfers, inspects the contract's functions, and pulls holder distribution data as it stood on the date of the check. It does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how tokens are meant to be allocated or vested over time, whether there is a legal entity behind the token, or what the stated intentions of the deployer are. A contract can show no technical red flags in this kind of check and still carry substantial risk from concentrated ownership, undisclosed allocations, or decisions made off-chain that this check has no visibility into. Equally, findings like mint capability or holder concentration are descriptions of what the contract currently allows or shows, not a judgement on whether that will be exercised or whether it is normal for a token at this stage.
Given a mint function is enabled and supply sits with a single visible holder, it would be reasonable to look for a public statement from the project on total supply caps, minting policy, and any planned token distribution schedule, and to check whether ownership of the contract has been renounced or is held by a multisig with disclosed signers. It's also worth checking Etherscan directly for the holder list and recent transaction history to see whether it changes over time, searching for any audit reports from named third-party firms, and looking for official project channels (website, documentation) that explain what HEMI is for and who is issuing it. None of this check's findings should be read as a conclusion about whether the token is worth buying — they are descriptive signals from the contract code only, current as of the date checked.
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.