| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 72.8% | Holder distribution | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 97111 | Token contract | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xe9df50…201d05 |
| Holders | 97,111 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x971f72…bf94a0 | 37.33% |
| #2 | 0x146507…6c5741 | 18.70% |
| #3 | 0xba5e35…d13eb6 | 3.94% |
| #4 | 0x2f77ae…13e62e | 3.48% |
| #5 | 0xf97781…41acec | 2.41% |
This automated check scored IMX 11 out of 18 on contract mechanics as of the check date. Here is what the findings mean in practical terms. The contract's admin mint function is enabled, which means whoever controls the owner address has the ability to create new tokens beyond the current supply — this can dilute existing holders' share of the total supply if used. Top-10 wallets hold 72.8% of supply, a high concentration that means large sales by a small number of addresses could move the market significantly. Liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever provided the trading pool's liquidity retains the ability to withdraw it, which could reduce the ability to sell the token at a stable price. On the more reassuring side, no buy or sell tax was detected, transfers were not found to be pausable, no address blacklist function was detected, the contract is not an upgradeable proxy, and the transfer simulation indicates the token can be sold. Source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the contract's logic is publicly visible and matches what is deployed.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only — it does not evaluate the team behind the project, the token's economic design, roadmap, legal structure, or intent. A verified, mechanically clean contract can still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals, poor governance, or undisclosed risks, and conversely, some flagged mechanics (like mint functions) are sometimes present in legitimate projects for standard operational reasons. No claim about the trustworthiness, legitimacy, or future performance of IMX or its team is made or implied by this score.
Before considering any transaction, it's worth looking into who controls the owner and mint privileges and whether that control sits with a multisig, a DAO, or a single key. Check whether the liquidity provider is a known exchange-linked address or an anonymous wallet, since unlocked liquidity behaves very differently depending on who holds it. Review the top-10 holder addresses to see if they are exchange or staking contracts rather than individual wallets, as this changes the concentration risk considerably. Look for official project communications, audits from named third parties, and any public documentation on mint policy and token allocation. None of this replaces independent research and, where relevant, professional financial or legal advice.
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.