| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract bytecode | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 40.7% | Holder distribution | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 129254 | Token contract | 30 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x6f2fc6…c3ce73 |
| Holders | 129,254 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x7da647…514108 | 12.65% |
| #2 | 0x4c6ee4…95fdeb | 12.06% |
| #3 | 0x11c4e9…8e0bbc | 5.03% |
| #4 | 0x075eb3…6aa3e9 | 3.25% |
| #5 | 0xc5f18a…1e9cac | 3.08% |
This automated check scored BLCK 0 out of 18 on Polygon, and the result that matters most is the first one: a simulated sale of this token failed. In plain terms, the contract's code blocks token holders from selling, a pattern commonly called a honeypot. Tokens can typically be bought but not sold back, which means value cannot be recovered through a normal transaction. On top of that, the contract owner has the ability to mint new tokens at will, which can dilute existing holders' share of supply at any time. Top-10 wallets hold 40.7% of all tokens, a concentration that gives a small number of addresses outsized influence over price if they were able to move their holdings. The contract's source code is also not verified on the block explorer, meaning this check relied on reading raw bytecode rather than human-readable code, and liquidity in the trading pool is not locked, so it could be withdrawn by whoever controls it.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics only — it looks at code behaviour, not at who is behind the project, what the tokens are meant to be used for, how funds raised are managed, or whether any marketing claims have substance. No person has reviewed this contract or the team behind it, and this check makes no statement about intent, legitimacy, or future conduct. A low score reflects what the code currently allows the owner to do, not a judgement about the people running the project.
Given that selling has been blocked in simulation, any funds put into this token would not be straightforwardly recoverable, so this is not a case where a small test transaction would clarify anything — the test itself has already been run by the simulation. If you want to look further, you could check whether the project has published any statement addressing the unverified source code or the mint function, look at the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer to see who controls it, and review the distribution of the top wallets to understand how concentrated control actually is. Independent verification of any team identity or claims, and consultation with someone qualified to advise on financial risk, would also be reasonable steps before treating any of this as settled.
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.