Token contract checks

For 6,030 tokens across 12 chains we read the deployed contract and record what it permits — whether new supply can be created, whether the logic can be replaced after launch, whether an authority can freeze a balance, whether the address that deployed it has shipped a honeypot before.

What this tells you is what the code allows. It does not tell you what the people behind a project intend to do, and the two are not the same: most tokens that can mint more supply never do. Treat every line below as a description of a contract, not as a judgement on a project.

Findings are withheld for assets with an established market position. The scanners are tuned for tokens deployed last week and misfire badly on regulated issuers — one flagged a major exchange's own token as a honeypot, and a tokenised fund on its deployer's history. A stablecoin really can freeze balances; that is a disclosed legal requirement rather than a trapdoor, and a heuristic written for meme coins cannot tell the difference. Each row below shows both counts.

The checks, and how common each one is

Frequency is the share of all 6,030 scanned contracts that carry the permission. A common one is what ordinary tokens look like; a rare one is worth a second look.

Check	How common	Contracts	Named
This creator has deployed a honeypot beforeSerious	7.7%	466	182
Contract owner is hidden from standard checksSerious	3.8%	232	97
An authority can freeze individual token accountsSerious	2.1%	129	82
An authority can alter balances directlySerious	1.0%	61	45
A renounced-looking owner can reclaim controlSerious	0.7%	43	27
Simulated sell fails — likely cannot be resoldSerious	0.5%	33	16
Contract can self-destructSerious	<0.1%	2	0
New supply can be mintedWorth knowing	18.4%	1,107	530
Upgradeable proxy — logic can change after launchWorth knowing	17.8%	1,072	458
Transfers can be pausedWorth knowing	4.7%	284	141
Buy/sell fees can be changed after launchWorth knowing	3.1%	186	120
Contract can blacklist individual addressesWorth knowing	3.0%	183	102
Creator still holds 53% of supplyWorth knowing	2.2%	134	76
Contract source code is not verifiedWorth knowing	0.9%	52	27
Transfer fee can be changed after launchWorth knowing	0.4%	25	10
Sell tax of 11%Worth knowing	0.3%	19	15
Buy tax of 13%Worth knowing	0.2%	11	9
Mint account can be closedWorth knowing	<0.1%	4	0
Ownership renounced — owner-only functions can no longer be calledNeutral	14.6%	883	631
Token metadata can still be changedNeutral	7.5%	451	275

What this cannot tell you

A permission is not a plan. A contract that can mint is not a contract that will. The check records the power, not its use.
A clean result is not an endorsement. It means the automated checks returned nothing, on the contract, on the day it was read. Projects fail for reasons no contract scan can see.
The contract may not be the one you think. Some tokens are native to chains these scanners do not cover, so what was read is a bridged deployment — a real contract, but a different one. Where that applies, the asset's own page says so.
Nothing here is advice. It is a record of what code permits, published so that the question can be asked at all.

Contract data from GoPlus Security. Read our methodology for how every figure on this site is produced.