Is Aave Token (AAVE) Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Findings

4 Info

Info

Reliance on External Bridge Security

I-01The `mint` and `burn` functions, which control the token's supply, are exclusively callable by the `BRIDGE` address. This design is fundamental for a cross-chain mintable token, but it means the security and integrity of the token's supply are entirely dependent on the security of the external `BRIDGE` contract. A compromise of the `BRIDGE` would allow arbitrary minting or burning of tokens, directly impacting the token's value and trust.

IssueThe `mint` and `burn` functions, which control the token's supply, are exclusively callable by the `BRIDGE` address. This design is fundamental for a cross-chain mintable token, but it means the security and integrity of the token's supply are entirely dependent on the security of the external `BRIDGE` contract. A compromise of the `BRIDGE` would allow arbitrary minting or burning of tokens, directly impacting the token's value and trust.

FixEnsure the `BRIDGE` contract is thoroughly audited, robustly secured, and follows best practices for access control, operational security, and incident response. Implement multi-signature control or time-locks for critical operations within the bridge if applicable.

StatusUnresolved

Info

Immutable Critical Parameters

I-02The `REMOTE_TOKEN`, `BRIDGE`, and `DECIMALS` variables are declared as `immutable` and are set only once during contract construction. This prevents any post-deployment modification of these critical parameters, enhancing the contract's security, predictability, and immutability of its core configuration.

IssueThe `REMOTE_TOKEN`, `BRIDGE`, and `DECIMALS` variables are declared as `immutable` and are set only once during contract construction. This prevents any post-deployment modification of these critical parameters, enhancing the contract's security, predictability, and immutability of its core configuration.

FixContinue to utilize `immutable` variables for critical parameters that should not change after deployment, as this is a strong security practice.

StatusUnresolved

Info

Adherence to ERC Standards and Backward Compatibility

I-03The contract correctly implements the ERC20 standard for token functionality and the ERC165 standard for interface introspection. It also includes legacy interfaces (`ILegacyMintableERC20`) and corresponding getter functions for backward compatibility within the Optimism ecosystem, ensuring broad interoperability without compromising current standards.

IssueThe contract correctly implements the ERC20 standard for token functionality and the ERC165 standard for interface introspection. It also includes legacy interfaces (`ILegacyMintableERC20`) and corresponding getter functions for backward compatibility within the Optimism ecosystem, ensuring broad interoperability without compromising current standards.

FixMaintain strict adherence to relevant ERC standards and ensure backward compatibility where necessary, as demonstrated, to support ecosystem evolution and integration.

StatusUnresolved

Info

Absence of Reentrancy and Arithmetic Vulnerabilities

I-04The contract does not perform external calls to untrusted addresses after state changes, effectively mitigating reentrancy risks. Furthermore, by inheriting from OpenZeppelin's `ERC20` library and operating in Solidity 0.8.15, the contract benefits from built-in overflow/underflow checks, preventing common arithmetic vulnerabilities in token operations.

IssueThe contract does not perform external calls to untrusted addresses after state changes, effectively mitigating reentrancy risks. Furthermore, by inheriting from OpenZeppelin's `ERC20` library and operating in Solidity 0.8.15, the contract benefits from built-in overflow/underflow checks, preventing common arithmetic vulnerabilities in token operations.

FixContinue to leverage secure and audited libraries like OpenZeppelin and Solidity's native safety features to prevent common vulnerabilities.

StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow8/10

The technical implementation of the OptimismMintableERC20 contract is robust, leveraging OpenZeppelin's battle-tested ERC20 library. Key security features include the use of `immutable` variables for critical addresses like `BRIDGE` and `REMOTE_TOKEN` (7.2 Code Security). Access control for `mint` and `burn` functions is strictly enforced via the `onlyBridge` modifier (7.3 Access Control). The contract exhibits no reentrancy vulnerabilities or integer overflow/underflow issues due to Solidity 0.8.x's default checks and careful design.

GovernanceHigh3/10

The economic model of the OptimismMintableERC20 token is straightforward, with its supply directly managed by a designated `BRIDGE` contract (7.4 Economic). This design is intentional for cross-chain functionality, meaning the token's integrity is inherently tied to the security of the external bridge. There are no internal governance mechanisms within this contract (7.5 Governance), simplifying its attack surface but centralizing control over token supply to the bridge.

UpgradesHigh3/10

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract is not designed as an upgradeable proxy, nor does it contain any self-upgrade mechanisms (7.7 Upgrades). This eliminates upgrade-related risks such as proxy storage collisions or logic errors during upgrades. The contract's `version` constant is for off-chain tooling and does not imply on-chain upgradeability.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership Renounced?

No Mint FunctionFail

Liquidity LockedFail

Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

66.3% in top 10

30.7% in wallets35.6% in contracts

Effective Concentration44.9%

Share held by contracts — treasury, vesting, bridge or staking — is discounted against share held by wallets when the score is computed: a contract cannot decide to sell the way an anonymous holder can, though it can still be drained or voted to sell. Effective concentration is the figure the risk score is actually calculated from.

Liquidity Depth

$1.53M across 20 pairs

AerodromeWETHanalysed$1.24M Uniswap v3WETH$135.8K Quickswap v4WETH$56.0K PancakeswapWETH$39.7K Uniswap v3USDC$31.4K Uniswap v4UNI$15.4K

Show 4 more pairsShow less

Uniswap v4ETH$6.0K 0x829c…4aEEWETH$5.3K Uniswap v4USDC$1.4K PancakeswapcbBTC$604

The 10 remaining pairs hold $1.6K between them and are not listed.

The risk score reads depth across every pair. The volume figure and the volume-to-liquidity ratio elsewhere on this page describe only the pair this audit analysed, so the two are not directly comparable.

LP Distribution

Top-1 Unlocked Holder44.1%

Top-3 Unlocked88.8%

Key Addresses

11 addresses

Deployer

0x4801…58f1

Unlocked LP Held By

0xd392…74700x7d27…fd550x9f6e…0b070x75fc…38360x02cb…8ce80xae6f…8e730xdf09…72010x4efc…b6920xd82f…e9620x3714…acfe

No privileged address appears among these holders: the unlocked liquidity sits with independent providers, not with the deployer.

What Raised This Score

5 factors

Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
Top-10 concentration > 30% (66.3% total → 44.9% effective; 30.7% in EOAs, 35.6% in contracts — moderate)
Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
LP top3 unlocked holders = 88.8% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 81% of DEX liquidity)

Each factor is an on-chain fact recorded at the time of this analysis. The score is computed from them by a deterministic function, so the same contract returns the same score for anyone who runs the audit. How scores are computed

Is Aave Token Safe?

Security Findings

Reliance on External Bridge Security

Immutable Critical Parameters

Adherence to ERC Standards and Backward Compatibility

Absence of Reentrancy and Arithmetic Vulnerabilities

Category Ratings

Security Checklist

Holder Composition

Liquidity Depth

LP Distribution

Key Addresses

What Raised This Score

Related Audits

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Aave Token?