| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 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 | 41.9% | Holder distribution | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% permanently | LP holders · Pons | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1630 | Token contract | 18 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb78567…11a04f |
| Holders | 1,630 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 9.75% |
| #2 · Pons locker, locked for good · contract | 0x267444…574952 | 8.16% |
| #3 | 0x2a13db…88db48 | 5.95% |
| #4 | 0x77bda6…fcb784 | 5.87% |
| #5 · contract | 0x960263…6f11f0 | 2.34% |
This automated check looked at the SGT contract's code and on-chain data as they stood on the date of the check, and scored 15 out of 18. In practical terms, that means a few things worth understanding clearly. A simulated transfer showed the token can be sold, which is a basic but important sign that holders are not locked into a position they cannot exit. The contract applies a combined 3% fee on both buys and sells (2% creator tax plus 1% Pons factory fee), which is paid out automatically to the creator and the platform on every trade — this is a standing cost of trading the token, not a one-off charge. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not currently have a built-in way to create new tokens and dilute holders. No pause function or address blacklist was found, so the owner does not appear able to freeze transfers or lock specific wallets out of trading. The contract is not upgradeable, meaning its rules cannot be swapped out later via a proxy. Liquidity is reported as 100% permanently locked, which reduces (though does not eliminate) the risk of the pool being withdrawn by whoever controls it. Source code is verified on the explorer, so the logic behind these findings can be independently read by anyone.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not do. It only reads contract mechanics — the functions that exist, the fees that are coded in, and how liquidity is held. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the team has a track record, how tokens were distributed at launch, what the stated use case or roadmap is, or whether any marketing claims hold up. The fact that top-10 wallets hold 41.9% of supply is a concentration figure, not a judgement — it simply means a small number of addresses could move a large share of the token if they chose to sell, which can affect price independently of anything the contract code does. None of this check constitutes legal, financial, or investment advice, and no human has reviewed these results.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who the top holders are and whether any are known exchange or lock contracts rather than individual wallets, checking whether the liquidity lock can be verified directly on the locking platform, reviewing the project's own documentation and any audit reports from independent firms, and searching for the team's public history or prior projects. Reading trading volume and holder growth over time, rather than a single snapshot, can also help put these figures in context.
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.