| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 2% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% permanently | LP holders · Pons | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xb6b525…23b523 |
This automated check looked at the Hookwire contract's code and found a score of 11 out of 12, which reflects contract mechanics only, not a judgement on the token as an investment. A simulated transfer showed the token could be bought and sold on the date of the check, with no honeypot behaviour detected. A combined tax of roughly 3% on each trade applies: 2% goes to the contract creator and 1% to the Pons platform, on both buys and sells. No admin mint function was found, meaning no mechanism was detected that would let the owner create new tokens and dilute holders. Transfers were not found to be pausable, so no on/off switch for trading was detected. No address blacklist function was found, meaning no mechanism was detected that would let the owner block specific wallets from trading. The contract is not upgradeable through a proxy, so its current logic cannot be swapped out later by the owner. The source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the code shown matches what is publicly readable, so the above findings could be checked against the actual contract. Liquidity is reported as 100% locked on a permanent basis through Pons, meaning the paired funds backing the market are not currently withdrawable by whoever added them, based on the data source checked.
What this check does not tell you is just as important. It says nothing about who is behind Hookwire, whether they have a track record, how tokens are distributed among holders, whether a small number of wallets hold a large share of supply, what the stated purpose or roadmap is, or whether any marketing claims around the project are accurate. A clean set of contract-level findings does not speak to intent, team conduct, or whether the broader token setup is sound. Contract mechanics and human behaviour are separate things, and this tool only looks at the former.
Before putting money in, it would be reasonable to look at the holder distribution to see how concentrated ownership is, check whether the liquidity lock is verifiable through the lock provider's own page rather than taking the label at face value, look into who the creator or team is and whether they're identifiable, read the actual Pons factory contract terms if you're unfamiliar with the platform, and search independently for any discussion, warnings, or history connected to this specific contract address on the Robinhood chain. None of this is investment advice, and nothing here indicates that holding or trading this token is free of risk.
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.