| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | Not in a pool yet — Pons bonding curve | Pons factory | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x55c002…0f8646 |
This automated check looked at the SCURO contract's code and found no honeypot behaviour at the time of the check — a sell simulation went through successfully, meaning holders are not currently blocked from selling. There is no admin mint function present, so the contract owner cannot create new tokens out of thin air to dilute holders. Transfers cannot be paused, and there is no blacklist function, so the owner cannot freeze specific wallets or block them from moving tokens. The contract is not upgradeable, so its core rules cannot be silently swapped out later. The source code is verified on the block explorer, which means anyone can read what the contract actually does rather than relying on marketing claims. On every trade, a combined 3% is taken — 2% as a creator tax paid to whoever deployed the token, and 1% as a Pons platform fee — this applies equally to buys and sells. Finally, SCURO is still on the Pons bonding curve and has not yet graduated to a liquidity pool; once it does, the Pons factory locks that pool permanently, but until that point there is no pool and no lock to assess.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it has not been reviewed by a person, and it says nothing about who is behind the project, how tokens are distributed among holders, whether the creator holds a large share that could be sold at any time, what the project claims to be building, or whether any of it holds up legally. A clean mechanical read does not speak to the intentions of the people running it.
Before putting money in, it's worth checking who holds the largest wallets and what share of supply they control, since concentrated ownership can affect how a token behaves regardless of what the contract code allows. It's also worth checking whether the creator tax wallet has a history of activity, looking at trading volume and the number of distinct holders rather than just transaction count, and following the project's own communications to see if the team is identifiable or pseudonymous. Since no pool exists yet, there is also nothing to assess in terms of liquidity lock duration or size — that will only become checkable once the token graduates from the bonding curve.
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 12 points out of 100.
The other 88 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.