| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 83.7% | Holder distribution | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 36145 | Token contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xea4e69…6194af |
| Current owner | 0x33b997…c7241b |
| Holders | 36,145 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x714eab…e969de | 35.53% |
| #2 | 0x33b997…c7241b | 17.91% |
| #3 · contract | 0x1ea6d6…d44e0f | 9.99% |
| #4 | 0x9887f9…59c263 | 9.34% |
| #5 | 0x241620…521154 | 8.85% |
This automated check scanned the LION contract on Polygon and found a sell transaction simulation completed successfully, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of the check. The contract does not contain mint, pause, blacklist or upgradeable-proxy functions as written, so the owner does not currently have a built-in mechanism to create new tokens, freeze transfers, block specific wallets, or swap in different contract logic later. Buy tax reads at 0%, though sell tax could not be read from the contract and so is unconfirmed. Two points stand out as risk indicators: the top 10 holders control 83.7% of the total supply, which means a small number of wallets could move a large share of tokens at once and affect the price available to other holders; and liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, potentially leaving holders unable to sell at a reasonable price even though the contract itself permits selling.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract code and on-chain data only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is real or anonymous, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether marketing claims match reality, or whether there is any legal structure or regulatory registration behind the token. A contract can score well on mechanics and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or undisclosed intentions, and conversely unusual mechanics don't automatically mean bad intent. This score reflects code behaviour at the time of scanning, nothing more.
Before putting money in, it would be worth looking into who holds that 83.7%, since concentrated wallets (team, exchange, or a handful of early buyers) behave very differently from scattered retail holders — block explorers let you inspect individual wallet addresses and their transaction history. It's also worth checking the liquidity pool directly to see who owns the LP tokens and whether there's any lock contract at all, since "not locked" on its own doesn't tell you the liquidity provider's intentions, only that there's no on-chain restriction stopping removal. Looking for independent audits, checking whether the team is publicly identified, reading the project's own documentation on token distribution, and searching for community discussion of the project's history would all add context this automated check cannot provide.
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.
Trading a meme coin? The meme coin check shows how much real money is in the pool and what you lose selling $1,000, who can pull that money out, who holds the supply and how it trades — ready within 3 minutes of payment, day or night.