0

I'm new to creating cryptos and doing all the programming of it.

Recently I came across a very suspicious token called BEAR that might be a Honeypot scam. Here's the function I don't understand and has been used only a few times in all the cryptos contracts codes:

contract BEAR is TokenERC20 {

  function clearCNDAO() public onlyOwner() {
    address payable _owner = msg.sender;
    _owner.transfer(address(this).balance);
  }

Here's the full source code (link)

I was able to track down multiple different coins using this function and all of them have a lot of signs of being a honeypot scam. Here's an example of that (link)

Could anyone confirm my suspicion or explain what the mentioned function does? Thanks in advance!

4
  • Hi JackPieCZ! Welcome to Ethereum Stackexchange! That function transfer the ether balance to the owner. Most tokens do not allow ether transfers. That function by itself doesn't seems like a scam but is suspicious. The other suspicious things is the function transfernewun.
    – Ismael
    Nov 11 '21 at 3:05
  • @Ismael That's so much for your insight. I really appreciate it. Yeah the transfernewun looks very suspicious as well. Is there a way how can the creator of the token execute those functions at any given time? And if yes, how? Is there something like a command line related to your token where you can execute those commands? Thank you so much in advance!
    – JackPieCZ
    Nov 12 '21 at 7:33
  • Yes, the owner can send a transaction with the command it will execute. It just need a wallet that can call a contract, like metamask.
    – Ismael
    Nov 12 '21 at 16:14
  • Does it mean something? or is it honeypotscam? Detected 0x8632...9 with 1224.51 TAU Token (TAU)(0.00%) - (contract) - Contract code : suspicious burn function detected !
    – nftgamer
    Jan 22 at 12:12
0

From a code perspective, the owner is simply able to transfer contract's balance to them at their whim.

But, token contracts which are legitimate generally don't implement ether transfers to owners atleast. Maybe because the contract can use the mint function and increase it's supply which can then permit the owner to swap those newly minted tokens on a DEX and then rug pull the users.

Had the ether transfer function did not exist, there would not be this case as the ether transfer would not happen at the owner's whim.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.