| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 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 |
| Liquidity locked | Not in a pool yet — Pons bonding curve | Pons factory | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 2 | Token contract | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x471096…1b24b0 |
| Holders | 2 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x962393…acc8ea | 99.98% |
| #2 · contract | 0xcec02d…df7ca4 | 0.02% |
This automated check scanned CATGPT's contract code and current on-chain state, and here is what the result actually means in practical terms. The findings show no admin mint function, no transfer-pausing mechanism, and no blacklist capability were detected in the contract — meaning, as of this check, the owner does not appear to hold code-level power to freeze your tokens, mint unlimited new supply, or block your wallet from selling. A sell simulation also completed successfully, and buy/sell taxes are low and fixed by the Pons factory rather than adjustable by the creator. The contract is not upgradeable and its source code is verified, which allows the logic to be read and checked rather than taken on trust. However, two things stand out: the token has only two holders, and those top holders control all of the supply between them. That is an extreme concentration reading — it does not mean anything was done wrong, but it does mean the price and available supply currently sit in very few hands, which carries its own risks regardless of contract safety. The token also has not yet graduated from its bonding curve to a liquidity pool, so there is no locked liquidity to assess yet; that only becomes checkable once trading moves to a pool.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. This is a mechanical read of the contract code and current holder data — it says nothing about who the team is, whether they are contactable or credible, how the tokenomics are designed to play out over time, whether any legal or regulatory structure sits behind the project, or what the creators' actual intentions are. No flags being raised here is not a statement that the project is sound, and it is not an endorsement of the people behind it.
Before putting money in, it would be sensible to look at the live holder list yourself to see how concentration changes over time, check whether the project has any public team identity or history, read how the bonding curve and graduation mechanism work on Pons so you understand what happens to liquidity at that point, and search independently for any discussion, warnings, or history tied to this specific contract address rather than relying on the token name alone.
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.