| 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 |
| Top-10 holders | 45.3% | Holder distribution | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% permanently | LP holders · Pons | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 390 | Token contract | 24 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x3d8a06…4a4220 |
| Holders | 390 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 16.32% |
| #2 · Pons locker, locked for good · contract | 0x267444…574952 | 8.16% |
| #3 | 0x98f0cc…f33c72 | 3.41% |
| #4 · contract | 0xa1560b…a32f51 | 2.87% |
| #5 · contract | 0x14fc06…1954dd | 2.64% |
This automated check found no honeypot behaviour: a transfer simulation showed OSTRA tokens can currently be sold, and the contract does not contain an admin mint function, a transfer-pause switch, an address blacklist, or an upgradeable proxy pattern. In practical terms, that means the contract owner does not appear able to mint new tokens to dilute holders, freeze transfers, block specific wallets from trading, or swap in new contract logic after the fact — at least not through mechanisms this scan can detect as of the check date. A 2% creator tax plus a 1% Pons factory fee applies on both buys and sells, meaning a small portion of every trade routes to the creator and the platform rather than being a hidden or variable fee the owner could raise at will. Liquidity is reported as 100% permanently locked, which reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of the pool being pulled out from under holders, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, so the logic actually running on-chain can be read by anyone.
One figure worth sitting with is that the top 10 holders control 45.3% of supply across only 390 total holders. That is not a flag the scoring system treats as a contract-level risk, but it is a concentration pattern worth factoring in yourself: a small number of wallets moving at once can affect the market for everyone else.
This check only reads contract mechanics as deployed on-chain. It says nothing about who is behind the project, whether the tokenomics or stated use case make sense, whether there is a company or legal entity accountable for claims made about the token, or what the creator's intentions are. A clean mechanical scan does not mean the project is sound, and it is not an endorsement of any kind.
Before considering any transaction, it would be reasonable to look at where the team is public or anonymous, read whatever documentation or whitepaper exists for consistency, check the liquidity lock details directly with the locker contract (duration, controlling address), review recent holder and transaction activity for unusual patterns, and search independently for any prior history tied to the creator's wallet or similar contracts. None of this check's findings should be read as a substitute for that independent research.
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.