| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 47.1% | Holder distribution | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | Launch pool, permanently | Doppler factory | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1860 | Token contract | 8 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x1b37d3…80b69a |
| Current owner | 0xeb7c03…ad0862 — Doppler Airlock contract, can’t change this token |
| Holders | 1,860 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 30.52% |
| #2 · contract | 0x2a6e10…df0449 | 2.55% |
| #3 · contract | 0x2cdf34…cf7e89 | 2.25% |
| #4 | 0x573141…ac3ae4 | 2.00% |
| #5 | 0x127796…d534a5 | 1.86% |
This automated check on CRUDECAT (Crude Cat) found no mint function, no pause function, no blacklist capability, and no upgradeable proxy pattern in the contract as it stands on the date of this check. In practical terms, this means the contract owner does not currently have a built-in mechanism to create new tokens out of thin air, freeze transfers, block specific wallets from trading, or swap out the contract's logic for something else later. Buy and sell tax were both found to be 0%, and a transfer simulation indicated the token is sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour — where buyers can purchase but not sell — was detected. The contract source code is also verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable and matches what's deployed, rather than being an unreadable black box. Liquidity in the launch pool was found to be locked permanently, which reduces (though does not eliminate) the risk of that specific pool being drained by its creator. One point worth flagging on its own: the top 10 holders control 47.1% of total supply, which is a concentrated distribution — large holders selling in a short window can move price sharply regardless of what the contract code allows or disallows.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of the contract's mechanics only — it looks at what the code technically permits, not at who is behind the project, what their intentions are, or whether their public statements can be trusted. It does not assess the team's identity or track record, the token's broader economic design (such as future unlock schedules, treasury allocations, or planned supply changes outside this contract), any legal or regulatory status, or marketing claims made elsewhere. A clean mechanical read does not mean the project is sound, and no automated system can confirm intent.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who is behind the project and whether they're identifiable, checking whether liquidity lock claims can be independently verified on the lock provider's own site rather than taken at face value, reviewing the holder list for wallets that look linked or controlled by one party despite appearing separate, searching for the token and team name alongside terms like "warning" or "review," and considering whether the concentration in the top 10 holders is something you're comfortable with given how easily concentrated holdings can affect price. None of the above should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid this token.
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.