| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 35.9% | Holder distribution | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% permanently | LP holders · Pons | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 903 | Token contract | 11 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xdc7a13…ae5489 |
| Holders | 903 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 11.87% |
| #2 · Pons locker, locked for good · contract | 0x267444…574952 | 8.23% |
| #3 · contract | 0x10fc84…3d7e3a | 2.85% |
| #4 | 0x67f079…3f9308 | 2.30% |
| #5 · contract | 0x909ff1…a589c1 | 2.04% |
This automated check found that SYNTHS completed a transfer simulation without detecting honeypot behaviour, meaning tokens could be sold in the test performed on the date of this check. A 2% creator tax plus a 1% Pons platform fee applies on both buys and sells, which is a cost built into every trade rather than a mechanism the owner can later change at will, based on the contract code reviewed. No admin mint function was detected, meaning the contract owner does not appear able to create new tokens and dilute holders. No transfer-pausing function or address blacklist capability was detected, so the ability to freeze trading or block specific wallets from moving tokens was not found in the contract. The contract is not upgradeable through a proxy, meaning its core logic cannot be swapped out after deployment. Liquidity is reported as 100% permanently locked, which limits the ability to withdraw the trading pool outright. Top-10 wallets hold 35.9% of supply, a concentration level that means a small number of holders could influence price through large sells, independent of any contract-level permissions.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it looks at code and on-chain data, not at the people behind the project. It does not assess who the team is, whether they are anonymous, their track record, how tokens were allocated or vested, whether marketing claims match reality, or whether any legal or regulatory structure exists around the project. A contract can pass every mechanical check here and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, an exit plan, or no real product behind it. No score on this page measures intent.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking at the liquidity lock details directly on Pons to confirm the lock duration and provider rather than relying on a summary, checking who the top holders are and whether any are exchange or team wallets, searching for the team's public presence and history, reviewing any audit reports if they exist, and reading the project's own documentation for how the 2% tax is used. Treat the 903-holder count and concentration figures as a snapshot that can change quickly, and recheck before making any decision.
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.