| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 65.6% | Holder distribution | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 107948 | Token contract | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Contract deployed | 23 Feb 2024 — 926 days ago |
| Deployment transaction | 0x021a4b…3df526 |
| Deployed by | 0x2460bc…20f1cd |
| Holders | 107,948 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x7a6a41…39bb53 | 17.35% |
| #2 | 0x86b578…8c0161 | 11.09% |
| #3 | 0x95bf94…a4995e | 10.17% |
| #4 | 0x5a52e9…70efcb | 5.85% |
| #5 | 0xf10873…7e41ac | 5.46% |
This automated check looked at how the ETHFI contract is built and how it behaves, not at who runs it or what it is worth. On the findings covered here, the contract does not show an admin mint function, so on the date of this check there was no detected mechanism for the owner to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. Transfers were not found to be pausable, meaning no on-chain switch was detected that would let a controlling party freeze trading for some or all wallets. No address blacklist function was detected, which would otherwise allow specific wallets to be blocked from selling. The contract is not upgradeable through a proxy pattern, so its core logic cannot be swapped out later without deploying an entirely new contract. Buy and sell tax both simulate at 0%, and a transfer simulation confirmed the token is sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of testing. The source code is verified on the block explorer, so its logic is publicly readable rather than hidden behind bytecode.
Two findings sit outside the "no mechanism detected" category and are worth sitting with. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever supplied the trading pool retains the ability to withdraw it, and this check cannot tell you their intentions or whether that liquidity is held by an exchange, a foundation, or an individual wallet. Top-10 holders control 65.6% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of wallets could influence price materially through their own trading activity, regardless of what the contract code allows.
None of this assesses the team behind ether.fi, its tokenomics or vesting schedules, its legal structure, marketing claims, or intent. A contract can pass every mechanical check listed above and still be tied to a project with weak fundamentals, undisclosed insider allocations, or a roadmap that does not materialise. This report is a read of contract mechanics only, generated automatically, with no human review of the project itself.
Before acting on any of this, it would be reasonable to look at who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, to check where the liquidity pool sits and who controls that address, to read ether.fi's own documentation on token allocation and vesting, and to look for independent audits of the contract from a named security firm. Cross-checking holder and liquidity data on a block explorer directly, rather than relying on a single snapshot, is also worth doing given how quickly these figures can shift.
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.