Ethereum · Smart Contract Security · Updated Jul 24, 2026

Is ADI Safe? ADI

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

Contract 0x8b14…caea DexScreener ↗

27 / 100

Medium Risk How is this score calculated? →

Volume 24h

$834.0K

Liquidity

$2.79M

Price

$6.9600

Token Age

6mo

Top 10 Holders

98.2%

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership RenouncedUnknown

No Mint FunctionPass

Liquidity LockedFail

Not a ProxyFail

Audit History

2 audits on record

Jul 2327

Every audit run adds a dated snapshot — history is append-only and cannot be edited.

Audit Summary

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.

Final Recommendation: Proceed with deployment after addressing high-severity findings and adding timelock protections for admin actions. A short remediation sprint for medium issues will materially reduce upgrade and oracle risk.

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow

9/10

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) appl

GovernanceHigh

2/10

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,

UpgradesHigh

1/10

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

Proxy Upgrade Controls

Proxy TypeEip1967 Uups

ImplementationVerified source

Upgrades (30d)0 · stable

LP Distribution

Top-1 Unlocked Holder100.0%

Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

What Raised This Score

6 factors

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 = 85% of DEX liquidity)
LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 85% 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