| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 88.4% | Holder distribution | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 10789 | Token contract | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xbb5e13…844153 |
| Holders | 10,789 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x0df057…d002cc | 21.75% |
| #2 · contract | 0xaa7cbf…a5baf5 | 21.00% |
| #3 · contract | 0x0fd796…d9ba24 | 19.44% |
| #4 | 0x96ee10…239aee | 8.23% |
| #5 · contract | 0x05ddab…77558e | 4.44% |
This automated check of the FF (Falcon Finance) contract on Ethereum returned a score of 13 out of 18, based on contract mechanics only. In practical terms, the simulation found that transfers can be sold, with a buy and sell tax of 0% detected at the time of the check. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract does not appear to let the owner create new tokens out of thin air. No ability to pause transfers was detected, so the owner does not appear able to freeze trading at will, and no address blacklist function was detected, meaning there is no on-chain mechanism found that would let the owner block specific wallets from transacting. The contract is also not upgradeable, so its current logic cannot be swapped out later by the deployer. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable and matches what's deployed, though this does not by itself indicate how the code behaves. Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than reassurances: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever controls the liquidity pool could in principle withdraw it, and the top 10 holders control 88.4% of supply, which is a high concentration that means a small number of wallets could materially affect the market if they sell.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads the contract's code and current on-chain state — it does not assess who is behind the project, how the team is structured, whether there is a legal entity attached, what the tokenomics or vesting schedule look like, or whether there is any intent to mislead holders. A verified, tax-free, non-pausable contract with no detected mint function tells you about the mechanics available to the deployer right now; it says nothing about the people running it or their future actions, including actions that fall outside the contract itself, such as how liquidity is managed off-chain.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who holds those top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking the liquidity pool directly to see who controls it and whether a lock exists elsewhere that this check didn't pick up, reviewing any team or project disclosures, whitepaper, and audit history, and checking community channels and transaction history for patterns such as recent large transfers or wallet clustering. Findings reflect only what was detected on the date of this check and can change as the contract, its liquidity, or its holder base evolve.
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.