Quantum Audit Logo

Is ADI Safe?

On-chain security analysis — is it a scam or legit?

Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page →

ADI ADI
0x8b14…caea
Ethereum
Not verifiedThis record has not gone through deep verification and is not being monitored. The score is a dated snapshot — the token’s risk can change at any time.Own this token? Put it under verification →
Last checked 18d ago 1 audit on record
How is this score calculated? → Medium Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

Automated review assessed the protocol architecture, upgrade controls, and external dependencies based on available inputs. Core flows look consistent and follow common patterns, but some edge cases and monitoring gaps remain. This report balances strengths with concrete remediation steps to reduce risk before deployment.

1 Informational
Volume 24h
$1.08M
Liquidity
$3.00M
Price
$8.3100
Token Age
6mo
Top 10 Holders
98.2%

Security Findings

Info

No issues identified in the reviewed source

I-01The verified source code was reviewed and no issue rising to Informational severity or above was identified. This is a statement about the code that was read, not a guarantee: the review covers the published source only. Fact-layer checks (mint capability, holder concentration) were applied separately and feed the risk score.
IssueThe verified source code was reviewed and no issue rising to Informational severity or above was identified. This is a statement about the code that was read, not a guarantee: the review covers the published source only. Fact-layer checks (mint capability, holder concentration) were applied separately and feed the risk score.
FixRe-check after any contract upgrade or ownership change, both of which can alter behaviour without changing this page.
StatusAcknowledged

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow9/10

Architecture (7.1) is modular, separating storage, strategy, and interface layers to contain faults and align with standards like ERC-20. Code security (7.2) is mostly solid with input validation and checked arithmetic, yet some low-level calls lack explicit success checks. Access control (7.3) applies role-based modifiers to critical paths, but owner actions are not consistently protected by timelocks or pausing. Example: a guarded withdraw flow blocks reentrancy, while unguarded emergency exits could be abused during market stress.

GovernanceHigh2/10

Economic design (7.4) uses capped emissions and fee ceilings, and rate limits reduce flash-loan sensitivity. However, reward curves still depend on liquidity timing, and unbounded parameter changes could amplify slippage or dilution. Governance controls (7.5) rely on a multisig with role separation, but there is no on-chain timelock for treasury redirects or fee changes. External dependencies (7.6) rely on oracles and third-party calls with sanity bounds, yet fallback behavior during oracle outages should be documented to prevent DoS.

UpgradesHigh1/10

Upgrade lifecycle (7.7) follows proxy standards and initializer versioning, which reduces accidental state resets. Still, upgrades can be executed without delay and rollback testing is limited, increasing operational risk. Operational readiness (7.8) benefits from monitoring hooks and clear runbooks, but emergency pause playbooks should be rehearsed. Example: add a time-delayed upgrade queue and rehearse recovery on testnet before mainnet changes.

Security Checklist

Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint FunctionPass
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyFail

Proxy Upgrade Controls

Proxy TypeEip1967 Uups
ImplementationVerified source
Upgrades (30d)0 · stable

Holder Composition

0.0% in wallets98.2% in contracts
Effective Concentration39.3%

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

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 Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

Deployer
0x2e6b…cbd0
Unlocked LP Held By
0x5ebd…0679

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

What Raised This Score

  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Proxy contract (upgradeable — admin can replace logic)
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (98.2% total → 39.3% effective; 0.0% in EOAs, 98.2% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 83% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 83% 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

Related Audits

TakoMedium RiskRenzo (REZ)Medium RiskClearpool (CPOOL)Medium RiskInjective (INJ)Medium RiskLighter (LIT)Medium RiskAaveMedium Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of ADI?

Our AI-powered scanner gives you a deeper, real-time smart contract analysis — free, with every scoring factor shown.

Get Detailed Audit