| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | ChainSift simulation | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 98.4% | Holder distribution | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 27 | Token contract | 29 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xd05b7f…185359 |
| Holders | 27 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x3e3767…263bfc | 87.37% |
| #2 · contract | 0xdce001…f49c48 | 2.56% |
| #3 | 0x7f8aa4…4a2f05 | 1.91% |
| #4 · contract | 0xf9a0b8…76941e | 1.57% |
| #5 | 0x000461…75c111 | 1.21% |
This automated check looked at the contract's code and current on-chain data, not at the people behind the token. On the date of the check, a simulated buy and sell both went through, with no buy or sell tax detected, which means the contract does not appear to block holders from selling — no honeypot behaviour was detected. The contract also does not currently contain functions for minting new tokens, pausing transfers, blacklisting addresses, or upgrading itself via a proxy, so the owner does not appear to retain those specific controls as of this check. The source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the actual logic behind the token can be read by anyone, which is a positive for transparency but does not by itself say anything about what that logic is designed to do over time.
Two findings here stand out and work against each other compared with the clean technical picture above. Liquidity is not locked, which means whoever controls the liquidity pool can withdraw it at any time, potentially leaving holders unable to sell at any meaningful price even though the contract itself permits selling. On top of that, the top 10 holders control 98.4% of the supply across only 27 known holders, an extremely concentrated distribution. In practice this means a very small number of wallets could sell or move large portions of supply, which could affect price sharply, and it also means the "no tax, no mint, no pause" result above only describes what the code allows — it says nothing about what those few large holders intend to do.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. It does not assess the team behind the project, whether they are named or anonymous, their track record, the token's economic design, any legal structure, marketing claims, or stated intentions. A contract can look clean mechanically while still carrying serious risk from concentrated ownership, unlocked liquidity, or simply being very new with few participants.
Before considering any involvement, it would be reasonable to look into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, to check whether the liquidity pool tokens are held by a single wallet or a multisig, to look for any public information identifying the team or developers, and to review the project's own documentation or communications for how supply is intended to be distributed or locked in future. None of this replaces independent research, and this check does not constitute financial advice.
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.