| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 92% | Holder distribution | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 1238 | Token contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xec018a…70573f |
| Current owner | 0xec018a…70573f |
| Holders | 1,238 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0x1eedec…d9dbe2 | 36.78% |
| #2 · UniswapV2 · contract | 0xf1db9d…2bdc3f | 29.57% |
| #3 | 0x8cc166…8c78e0 | 10.73% |
| #4 | 0x3df513…f46fef | 5.11% |
| #5 · contract | 0x100ae0…3829ba | 2.53% |
This automated check scanned the EDU Coin contract on Ethereum and returned a score of 10 out of 18, based on the mechanics written into the contract itself. A few things stand out. The contract's admin mint function is enabled, which means whoever controls the owner address can create new tokens at will — this can dilute existing holders' share of supply without warning. Top-10 wallets hold 92.2% of all tokens, a high concentration that means large sales by a small number of addresses could move the price sharply, and coordination (intentional or not) among a few holders can affect the market for everyone else. Liquidity is not locked, so whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it, which can leave buyers unable to sell at a reasonable price. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected in transfer simulation, buy and sell tax are both set at 0%, and the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning its logic is publicly readable rather than hidden. No pausable-transfer function, blacklist mechanism, or upgradeable proxy pattern was detected as of the date of this check.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads only the contract's code and on-chain data — mint functions, tax settings, holder distribution, liquidity status, and similar mechanics. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team's identity has been verified, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether any legal or regulatory structure applies, or what the stated intentions of the project are. A contract can score well on mechanics while the people running it still behave in ways that harm holders, and conversely a contract with some risk flags may still be operated responsibly. This check cannot tell you which situation you're looking at.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking into who controls the owner and mint-authority addresses, and whether ownership has been renounced or is held by a multisig with public signers. Check whether the liquidity pool tokens are held by an identifiable, locked contract with a visible unlock date, rather than by an ordinary wallet. Look at the top holder addresses individually to see whether they're exchanges, known project wallets, or unlabelled addresses. Review any published tokenomics, team information, audits, and community discussion, and treat marketing claims with the same scrutiny as the contract data itself.
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.