| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | No data | Contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | 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 | 100% | Holder distribution | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 6 | Token contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x741566…a7aa6d |
| Current owner | 0x741566…a7aa6d |
| Holders | 6 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0x741566…a7aa6d | 99.62% |
| #2 · contract | 0xc753ab…0a78a2 | 0.20% |
| #3 · contract | 0x15ee33…44647b | 0.16% |
| #4 · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 0.02% |
| #5 · contract | 0x2be87a…3e4874 | 0.00% |
This automated check scanned the IPTZ contract code and found a score of 12 out of 18. In plain terms, a few of the more concerning mechanisms were not detected on the date of the check: there is no admin mint function present, meaning the owner does not appear able to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders; transfers do not appear pausable, meaning the owner does not appear able to freeze all trading at will; there is no address blacklist function present, meaning the owner does not appear able to block specific wallets from selling; and the contract is not an upgradeable proxy, meaning the underlying code cannot later be swapped out for different logic. The contract source is verified on the block explorer, which means the code is publicly readable rather than hidden. A sell simulation indicated the token is currently sellable, meaning no honeypot behaviour was detected at the time of testing.
That said, the data shows only 6 holders in total, with the top 10 wallets (which, with only 6 holders, means all of them) controlling 100% of the supply. This is an extreme concentration reading: it means a very small number of wallets hold the entire circulating supply, and any one of them selling could move the market significantly. Buy and sell tax data was not available, so it is not known from this check whether transfers carry a hidden fee.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at code functions, holder distribution, and a transfer simulation. It says nothing about who the team behind IPTZ is, whether they are identifiable or anonymous, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether there is a real product or roadmap, or whether any marketing claims made about the project are accurate. A clean mechanical read does not speak to intent, and a contract with no risky functions coded in can still be part of a project with no real activity behind it or with supply concentrated in ways that allow coordinated selling.
Given the extremely small holder count and full supply concentration, it would be reasonable to look further before treating this check as reassuring. Concrete next steps include looking up the contract address on a block explorer to see the actual wallets holding supply and whether they are linked to exchanges, liquidity pools, or a single entity; checking whether liquidity is locked and for how long; searching for the team or project behind IPTZ independently of their own channels; and treating any token with six holders and full concentration as carrying a materially different risk profile from one with a broad, organic holder base.
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.