| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | ChainSift simulation | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | Not found | Implementation code | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not found | Implementation code | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Enabled | Implementation code | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | Yes — a single wallet can replace the code | Proxy contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 2.4% | Holder distribution | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 11915 | Token contract | 26 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xa389fa…7ba618 |
| Code can be replaced by | 0x915a0c…7e0d8c — a single wallet |
| Current code | 0xd38615…b71214 |
| Holders | 11,915 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · Uniswap v4 pool · contract | 0x8366a3…e40951 | 2.10% |
| #2 · contract | 0x54c5ce…f948e0 | 0.05% |
| #3 · contract | 0xa88dd1…e3fc82 | 0.04% |
| #4 · contract | 0x047440…b8b369 | 0.04% |
| #5 | 0xd00ac2…7fa9e1 | 0.04% |
This automated check found that swordcat's contract allows selling, with no buy or sell tax detected and no admin mint or transfer-pause function found in the implementation code at the time of the check. However, two findings deserve close attention. First, the contract supports blacklisting, meaning the party with admin rights can block specific addresses from transacting with the token — this capability was detected even though it was not seen in use. Second, and more significantly, this is an upgradeable proxy contract: a single wallet holds the power to swap out the underlying code entirely, at any time, without needing holder approval. That means every other finding here — including "no mint function" and "no pause function" — describes the contract as it exists today, not as it could exist after an upgrade. Liquidity is also not locked, so whoever controls the liquidity pool could withdraw it, which would affect the ability to sell or the price received when selling, independent of anything the token contract itself does.
It's worth being clear about what this score does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it checks what the code technically permits, not who holds the admin keys, what they intend to do with them, or whether the project has any substance behind it. The score does not assess the team's identity or track record, the tokenomics or distribution plan beyond the raw holder percentages shown, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or whether marketing claims match reality. A high mechanical score does not speak to intent, and no human has reviewed this contract or project — the whole check is automated.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who controls the upgrade and blacklist privileges — some projects route this through a multisig or timelock, which at least adds friction and visibility to any change, while others leave it with a single wallet. Checking whether that admin wallet has a history of prior actions on other tokens can also be informative. Since liquidity isn't locked, look at how much liquidity exists relative to trading volume and who the LP token holders are. It's also worth checking whether the project has published any information about the upgrade authority's intentions, and watching the explorer for any contract upgrade events over time, since the permissions here mean the current snapshot could change without warning.
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.