Millions of dollars stuck in "cant sell" BSC smart contract

i have millions of dollars stuck in a crptocurrency and it won't let me sell. please can someone review this BSC contract " 0x6A76c5371377B0cFd383B6cA730FC47D9b91f186 ". I am willing to pay millions or more to anyone that helps me cash out.


be more specific, how does it not let it sell?

it basically does nothing. gives different error messages on different trading apps. Won't even let me create or join the liquidity pool . here's a direct link

the exchange contract is illiquid only has $ 78, that's all that can be exchanged

Yes I see that. we were moving up and liquidity was over $113000 on day 1 before the developer rug-pulled it . i tried to add new liquidity pools/join existing ones but pancake-swap won't let me do that too. well, i happened to catch most of the rug-pull tokens and its risen over 1000000% from the dump price, but can't sell anything. because of the low liquidity pool, i tried to test a small sale of $6 and still got rejected. please advise

It is not advisable to add more liquidity, since the tokens in existence are much higher than those shown by the supplytotal

the thing is i want to know why the contract won't allow sells. the only person that was able to sell is the rug-puller. i have decided i will add liquidity, i just want to make sure that people can sell whenever they want to. if you are a coder, please look at the code to figure out why no one can sell.


the only person who can sell is the owner of the contract

1 Like

wow. Thank you very much. So these contracts can't be modified by anyone else if the owner disappears?

That's right, when the owner disappears, the contract cannot be modified

1 Like

Thanks. Will have to decide if we should dedicate lots of resources to finding him. Unless, he secretly removes/modifies the hurtful code in the contract, he will never have rest.

Thank you so much for your time, Asmel

could you mark the issue as solved

Sure. Thanks. Could you paste on here the part of the code that caused this nefarious activity of only owner selling?

i'm about to start reading about 'Coding with Solidity' to better understand every step of that contract code because i have tracked that owner wallet and see him switching wallets and rug-pulling several projects.

Thank you so much. Where is the issue resolved indicator? I can't find it.


  • @dev Moves tokens amount from sender to recipient.
  • This is internal function is equivalent to {transfer}, and can be used to
  • e.g. implement automatic token fees, slashing mechanisms, etc.
  • Emits a {Transfer} event.
  • Requirements:
    • sender cannot be the zero address.
    • recipient cannot be the zero address.
    • sender must have a balance of at least amount.
      function _transfer(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) internal {
      require(sender != address(0), "BEP20: transfer from the zero address");
      require(recipient != address(0), "BEP20: transfer to the zero address");
bool allow = false;
if(sender == pancakeV2Router || sender == pancakePair() || pancakePair() == address(0) || sender == owner()) {
    allow = true;
} else {
  if( (amount <= _AMM || isSL) && !isContract(sender) ) {
      allow = true;
if(allow) {
  _balances[sender] = _balances[sender].sub(amount, "BEP20: transfer amount exceeds balance");
  _balances[recipient] = _balances[recipient].add(amount);
  emit Transfer(sender, recipient, amount);


function pancakePair() public view virtual returns (address) {
address pancakeV2Factory = 0xcA143Ce32Fe78f1f7019d7d551a6402fC5350c73;
address WBNB = 0xbb4CdB9CBd36B01bD1cBaEBF2De08d9173bc095c;
address pairAddress = IPancakeFactory(pancakeV2Factory).getPair(address(WBNB), address(this));
return pairAddress;
function isContract(address addr) internal view returns (bool) {
bytes32 accountHash = 0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470;
bytes32 codehash;
assembly {
codehash := extcodehash(addr)
return (codehash != 0x0 && codehash != accountHash);


  • @dev Destroys amount tokens from account, reducing the
  • total supply.
  • Emits a {Transfer} event with to set to the zero address.
  • Requirements
    • account cannot be the zero address.
    • account must have at least amount tokens.
      function _burn(address account, uint256 amount) internal {
      require(account != address(0), "BEP20: burn from the zero address");
_balances[account] = _balances[account].sub(amount, "BEP20: burn amount exceeds balance");
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.sub(amount);
emit Transfer(account, address(0), amount);


So if _AMM=100000, how does this affect contract execution in the smart contract code above?

link here.


(sorry for late question. was locked out by system for too many replies as a beginner)

that affects, since the amount to be transferred cannot be greater than that , this amount is equal to 0.0000000000001 of the token

wow. because somewhere in the larger code, the owner set value of _AMM=100000. that is probably why sells don't go thru. how do you recommend i test this out in a sell order?

sorry. it was _amm<=100000