| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 60.2% | Holder distribution | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 484 | Token contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x1b37d3…80b69a |
| Current owner | 0xeb7c03…ad0862 |
| Holders | 484 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 39.42% |
| #2 · burned | 0x000000…00dead | 7.20% |
| #3 | 0xbac453…567a89 | 2.84% |
| #4 | 0xbb0f84…68b1e4 | 2.54% |
| #5 | 0x5d70ad…4659cb | 1.79% |
This automated check of BONERMAN found no honeypot behaviour at the time of scanning: a simulated transfer went through successfully, buy and sell tax are both set at 0%, and the contract does not contain an admin mint function, a transfer-pausing mechanism, an address blacklist, or an upgradeable proxy pattern. In practical terms, this means the contract owner was not found to have the coded ability to mint new tokens at will, freeze transfers, block specific wallets from selling, or swap out the contract logic after deployment. The contract's source code is also verified on the block explorer, meaning the code backing the token is publicly readable and matches what's deployed, rather than being hidden. Two points did lower the score: the top 10 holders control 60.2% of total supply, and liquidity is not locked. Concentrated holdings mean a small number of wallets could sell a large portion of supply at once, which can move the price sharply regardless of anyone's intent. Unlocked liquidity means whoever controls the liquidity pool retains the ability to withdraw it, which would make the token difficult or impossible to sell at a reasonable price.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is anonymous or doxxed, how tokenomics are structured beyond what's visible on-chain, whether any legal entity stands behind the token, or what the team's intentions are. A clean mechanical read does not speak to any of that, and the absence of a flag here only means the specific behaviour was not detected on the date of this check, not that it's absent going forward — contracts and liquidity positions can change.
Before putting money toward this token, consider looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, since concentration numbers alone don't say who's behind them. Check whether the liquidity pool tokens are held in a wallet that could be a project multisig versus an EOA with no lock or vesting schedule. Look for a public team, audit history from a named firm, and community discussion around the project's history. Reviewing the contract deployer's past transactions and other tokens they've launched can also be informative. None of this check constitutes investment advice, and nothing here predicts how the token will perform.
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.