| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 2.5% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 2.5% creator tax + 1% Pons fee | Pons factory | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not present | Contract | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 96.9% | Holder distribution | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | 100% permanently | LP holders · Pons | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 240 | Token contract | 9 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x5102d4…6db955 |
| Holders | 240 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 82.14% |
| #2 · Pons locker, locked for good · contract | 0x267444…574952 | 8.16% |
| #3 · contract | 0x472502…1d8c5b | 2.14% |
| #4 | 0xf94dbf…560d35 | 1.10% |
| #5 | 0x859a60…8b9ed3 | 0.78% |
This automated check found that ASTRAL's contract allows selling (no honeypot behaviour was detected on the date of this check), does not include a mint function, does not include the ability to pause transfers, does not include an address blacklist, and is not an upgradeable proxy. In practice, this means the contract owner was not found to have the technical means to mint new tokens, freeze transfers, or block specific wallets from trading, based on what the code contains. A combined 3.5% tax (2.5% creator fee plus 1% Pons protocol fee) applies on both buys and sells, meaning a portion of every trade is routed to the creator and the platform rather than staying with the trader. Liquidity is reported as 100% permanently locked, which reduces (though does not eliminate) the risk of the liquidity pool being withdrawn by whoever controls it. The contract source code is verified on the block explorer, meaning the published code can be read and matched against what actually runs on-chain, which supports the other findings but is not itself a guarantee of anything beyond that.
One finding that stands out is that the top 10 holders control 96.9% of the supply, across only 240 holders in total. This level of concentration means a small number of wallets could sell large amounts at once, which can affect price and liquidity for everyone else holding the token, regardless of what the contract code permits or restricts.
It's important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics only — things that can be verified from code and on-chain data. It does not assess the team behind the project, their identity, track record or intentions; it does not assess the tokenomics design, such as how supply was distributed or vesting schedules; and it does not assess any legal or regulatory structure the project may or may not have. A contract can score well on this mechanical check and still be part of a project with weak fundamentals, undisclosed risks, or an unreliable team. This check cannot detect intent.
Before putting money into ASTRAL, it would be worth looking into who holds the top wallets and whether any are known exchange or team addresses, checking the liquidity lock details directly on Pons to confirm the lock duration and recipient, looking for any public information about the team or project roadmap, and reviewing the trading volume and holder growth over time rather than at a single snapshot. None of the findings above should be read as a recommendation to buy, hold, or avoid this token.
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.