| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | 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 | 71.3% | Holder distribution | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 2880 | Token contract | 8 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 19 May 2019 — 2,669 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x09dc30…e8c50d |
| Deployed by | 0xda2af2…b5db74 |
| Holders | 2,880 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0xe90644…97112b | 21.75% |
| #2 | 0xf97781…41acec | 12.33% |
| #3 | 0xf77859…9cad98 | 10.50% |
| #4 | 0x907451…5e2286 | 9.33% |
| #5 | 0x000000…00dead | 3.75% |
This automated check looked at the PROM contract's code and on-chain data as they stood on the date of the check, and scored 13 out of 18. In practical terms, transfer simulations show the token can be sold, no minting function was detected (so the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders), no pause function was detected (so transfers cannot obviously be frozen by an admin), no blacklist function was detected (so no mechanism was found for the owner to block specific wallets from trading), and the contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning its logic cannot be swapped out for something else after deployment. The contract source code is also verified on the block explorer, which means anyone can read the actual logic rather than trusting a black box. Two points stand out as risk indicators rather than red lines: liquidity is not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could in theory withdraw it and sharply reduce the ability to sell at a fair price, and the top 10 holders control 71.3% of supply, which is a high concentration — large wallets moving at once can affect price significantly. Buy and sell tax data was not available from the contract check, so no assumption should be made in either direction there.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics and on-chain holder data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is doxxed or anonymous, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether there's a working product, or whether any marketing claims match reality. A contract can score well here and still be attached to a project with weak fundamentals or misleading claims, and conversely a lower-scoring contract isn't automatically evidence of bad intent. No human has reviewed this token or its team; the results above come entirely from automated analysis of contract code and public chain data.
Before considering any transaction, it would be reasonable to look at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, check whether the liquidity pool has any lock or vesting commitment stated by the project (and verify it independently rather than taking a claim at face value), look at trading volume and slippage on a decentralised exchange to see how easily the token can actually be bought and sold, and search for independent information about the team, audits, and community history beyond the contract 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.