| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 99.8% | Holder distribution | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1844 | Token contract | 27 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x9fbc2b…549c2a |
| Current owner | 0x9fbc2b…549c2a |
| Holders | 1,844 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x33aca0…bfa021 | 20.39% |
| #2 · contract | 0x0f5fba…cdee37 | 14.16% |
| #3 | 0xa51c76…146561 | 13.59% |
| #4 | 0x0caf72…382305 | 11.33% |
| #5 | 0x168470…c6cc8a | 10.70% |
This automated check scanned the WBS contract on Polygon and found a mixed set of results, scoring 11 out of 18. A few things are worth translating into plain terms. The contract includes a blacklist function, which means whoever controls the contract has the technical ability to block specific wallet addresses from transferring or selling the token. This was detected as present in the code on the date of this check, regardless of whether it has ever been used. On the positive side, no admin minting function was detected, meaning the contract does not appear to let the owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pausable transfer function and no upgradeable proxy pattern were detected either, which limits some other common ways a contract owner could alter how the token behaves after launch. Buy and sell taxes both read as 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is currently sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of the check. However, liquidity is not locked, which means whoever supplies the trading liquidity retains the ability to withdraw it from the pool at any time, and the top 10 wallets hold 99.8% of the total supply, an extremely high concentration that means a small number of holders could affect the market significantly if they sold.
It's important to understand what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's code and on-chain data only, performed on the date shown. It says nothing about who is behind the project, their track record, their stated plans, or whether marketing claims match reality. It doesn't assess tokenomics design, roadmap credibility, legal structure, or whether any individual or team has honest intent. A contract can score well here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals or undisclosed risks, and a lower score doesn't by itself mean wrongdoing is occurring.
Before considering any transaction, it would be worth looking at the liquidity pool directly on a block explorer or DEX analytics tool to see who holds the LP tokens and whether they could remove liquidity unilaterally. It's also worth examining the wallet addresses behind that 99.8% concentration to see if they're linked to exchanges, team wallets, or unrelated holders, and checking whether the project has any public team identity, audit reports, or community history that can be independently verified.
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.