| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 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 |
| Top-10 holders | 36.7% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 5454 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xed2704…10c6c4 |
| Holders | 5,454 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0x2a0041…2d2d60 | 11.18% |
| #2 · contract | 0x31c83a…895dd9 | 7.06% |
| #3 | 0x0ba59b…095f5f | 4.53% |
| #4 | 0xb73f06…5bb84a | 2.76% |
| #5 | 0xcc2c5f…796b6e | 2.49% |
This automated check on WOOF (Shibinhood) looked at how the contract itself behaves, not at who runs it or what they intend to do with it. On the date of the check, a sell simulation showed the token can be sold, and both buy and sell tax were recorded at 0%. No admin mint function was detected, meaning there's no visible mechanism in the contract for the owner to create new tokens out of thin air and dilute holders. No pause function was detected, so the contract does not appear to let anyone freeze transfers. No blacklist function was detected, which means there's no built-in way to block specific wallets from transacting. The contract is also not upgradeable via a proxy, so its current logic cannot be swapped out later for something more restrictive. The source code is verified on the block explorer, so anyone can read exactly what the contract does rather than trusting a compiled blob. The two points taken off the score relate to holder concentration and liquidity: the top 10 wallets hold 36.7% of supply, which is a meaningful concentration that could affect price if those holders sell in size, and the liquidity backing the token is not locked, meaning whoever controls it could withdraw it from the trading pool at any time.
It's worth being clear about what this check cannot see. It does not know who the team behind WOOF is, whether they're pseudonymous or doxxed, what their track record looks like, or what their actual plans for the project are. It says nothing about tokenomics decisions like future supply schedules, vesting for team or investor allocations, or planned emissions. It doesn't assess legal structure, jurisdiction, or regulatory exposure, and it makes no judgement about intent — a contract can look clean mechanically while still being part of a project that behaves badly in ways code alone won't reveal.
Before putting any money in, it's worth looking at who holds that unlocked liquidity and whether there's any disclosed timeline or commitment around locking it, since this is the main structural risk flagged here. It's also worth checking whether the top 10 wallets include known exchange or team addresses, which would change how that concentration figure should be read. Beyond the contract, looking into the team's public presence, any audit reports beyond this automated check, community discussion, and how the project describes its own tokenomics would all add context this check doesn't cover.
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.