Quantum Audit Logo

Is aixbt by Virtuals Safe?

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

aixbt by Virtuals AIXBT
0x4f9f…a825
Base Not verifiedLast checked 1d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Medium Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

No Solidity contract source code was provided for analysis. Therefore, a comprehensive security audit could not be performed. The report fields reflect this lack of input, with risk levels and findings marked as N/A or informational. To conduct a proper audit, the full source code is required.

1 Informational
Volume 24h
$40.8K
Liquidity
$946.9K
Price
$0.02301
Token Age
1y
Top 10 Holders
53.7%

Security Findings

1 Info
Info

No Contract Source Code Provided for Analysis

I-01The audit request did not include any Solidity contract source code. As a result, a detailed security analysis of the contract's implementation, logic, and potential vulnerabilities could not be performed. All risk assessments and findings are therefore based on the absence of information.
IssueThe audit request did not include any Solidity contract source code. As a result, a detailed security analysis of the contract's implementation, logic, and potential vulnerabilities could not be performed. All risk assessments and findings are therefore based on the absence of information.
FixTo receive a comprehensive security audit, please provide the complete and verified Solidity source code for the contract at address . This will enable a thorough review of all technical, economic, governance, and upgradeability aspects.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow8/10

Due to the absence of contract source code, a technical security analysis (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control) could not be performed. No assessment of reentrancy, integer overflows, or other common vulnerabilities was possible. Without code, no strengths or weaknesses in implementation can be identified.

GovernanceHigh2/10

Without the contract's source code, an evaluation of economic models (7.4 Economic) and governance mechanisms (7.5 Governance) is not feasible. It is impossible to assess potential oracle manipulation, flash loan vulnerabilities, or the robustness of any administrative controls. Similarly, external dependencies (7.6 External) cannot be identified or analyzed.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The upgradeability aspects (7.7 Upgrades) and operational procedures (7.8 Operations) of the contract cannot be determined without access to the source code. It is unknown if the contract employs a proxy pattern, if upgrade paths are secure, or if multi-signature controls are in place for critical operations. Therefore, no assessment of upgrade safety or operational risks can be made.

Security Checklist

3/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership RenouncedFail
No Mint FunctionPass
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass
HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

53.7% in top 10
46.9% in wallets6.7% in contracts
Effective Concentration49.6%

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

$1.37M across 25 pairs
Uniswap v2VIRTUALanalysed$946.9K69.0%Uniswap v3USDC$351.5K25.6%Uniswap v2BNKR$24.6K1.8%AerodromeWETH$17.7K1.3%Uniswap v2MAMO$9.2K0.7%Uniswap v3VIRTUAL$5.1K0.4%
Show 4 more pairsShow less
AerodromeWETH$5.0K0.4%Uniswap v3WETH$4.6K0.3%PancakeswapVIRTUAL$3.2K0.2%AerodromeVIRTUAL$1.5K0.1%

The 15 remaining pairs hold $2.6K 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 Holder70.7%
Top-3 Unlocked93.1%

Key Addresses

11 addresses
Deployer
0x0114…08a7
Unlocked LP Held By
0x3533…c33c0x04c5…0df50x713b…3d410xd278…b2c20xdc86…5d100xeed7…03af0x06a8…701f0x5325…44ec0x896c…fc380xb96b…463c

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 NOT renounced (admin/mint authority retained)
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (53.7% total → 49.6% effective; 46.9% in EOAs, 6.7% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 70.7% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 69% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 93.1% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 69% 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

6 more on the record
PlayMedium RiskThe Stonks Exchange (STONKEX)Medium RiskBasehatMedium RiskOpalMedium RiskOpenGradient (OPG)Medium RiskZoraMedium Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of aixbt by Virtuals?

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

Get Detailed Audit