| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 90.5% | Holder distribution | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 11326 | Token contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 19 Sept 2025 — 354 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x26ea33…529148 |
| Deployed by | 0xbb5e13…844153 |
| Holders | 11,326 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x0df057…d002cc | 22.50% |
| #2 | 0xaa7cbf…a5baf5 | 21.60% |
| #3 | 0x0fd796…d9ba24 | 20.00% |
| #4 | 0x96ee10…239aee | 7.48% |
| #5 | 0x05ddab…77558e | 4.89% |
This automated check on FF (Falcon Finance) scored 12 out of 18, and the individual findings are worth reading in plain terms. On the date of the check, no admin mint function, no transfer pausing mechanism, and no address blacklist capability were detected in the contract code — meaning nothing was found that would let the contract owner mint new tokens out of thin air, freeze a wallet's transfers, or block specific addresses from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its underlying logic cannot be silently swapped out later. A transfer simulation showed the token can be sold, and buy/sell taxes both came back at 0%, so no hidden fee-on-transfer behaviour was detected at the time of the check. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the actual code is publicly readable rather than hidden — a positive for transparency, though it does not by itself vouch for what that code does. The two findings that pull the score down are structural: the top 10 holders control 90.5% of the supply, which is a high concentration that means a small number of wallets could move a large share of tokens at once, and liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, which could sharply affect the ability to sell at a stable price.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics — the code, its permissions, and current holder and liquidity data. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team's identity is known or verifiable, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether there are legal or regulatory considerations, or what the project's actual intentions are. A clean mechanical read does not confirm good intent, and flagged items do not confirm bad intent either — they only describe what the code technically permits.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking at who holds those top wallets and whether they're exchange or team addresses, checking the liquidity pool directly to see who owns the LP tokens and whether they're locked or vested on a timelock service, researching the team's public identity and track record, reading any available audit reports from independent firms, and reviewing the project's own documentation on tokenomics and supply distribution. None of this replaces independent research and judgement.
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.