| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 39.1% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1617 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x410481…368331 |
| Holders | 1,617 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 18.04% |
| #2 · contract | 0xf18828…8f81f2 | 5.39% |
| #3 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 2.49% |
| #4 · contract | 0xabc0a4…b685cf | 2.32% |
| #5 | 0x913637…8ab022 | 2.02% |
This automated check looked at the TORCH contract's code and on-chain behaviour, not at the people or promises behind it. A transfer simulation found the token can be sold, which is a basic but important signal, since some tokens are built so that only the creator can sell while everyone else is stuck holding. The contract does not currently contain an admin mint function, meaning there is no mechanism detected that would let the owner create new tokens out of thin air and dilute existing holders. No pause function was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze all transfers and trap funds. No blacklist mechanism was detected either, meaning there is no on-chain code found that would let the owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, which matters because upgradeable contracts can have their entire logic swapped out later, including adding restrictions that were not there on the day you checked. Source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic is publicly readable rather than hidden behind an unverified bytecode blob. One point worth sitting with: the top 10 wallets hold 39.1% of supply, which is a meaningful concentration — large holders selling at once can move price sharply regardless of what the contract code allows or restricts.
What this check cannot tell you is whether the people behind TORCH intend to act in holders' interests, whether the tokenomics (supply schedule, team allocation, vesting) are reasonable, whether there is a real legal entity standing behind the project, or whether the team has a history worth trusting. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, unclear ownership, or a team that quietly controls those concentrated top-10 wallets. Buy and sell tax data was not available from the contract in this check, so actual trading costs are still unconfirmed and worth verifying directly through a small test transaction before committing meaningful funds.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at who holds those top 10 wallets and whether any are known exchange or liquidity addresses rather than individuals, checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long, reading whatever documentation or social presence the project has for consistency and transparency, and searching for the team's identity or track record. Running a small test buy and sell can also confirm real-world tax and slippage. None of this check constitutes investment advice, and the absence of a flag only reflects what was detected on the date it ran.
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.