On-chain security analysis — is it a scam or legit?
No contract source code was provided for analysis. Therefore, a comprehensive security audit could not be performed.
Read the full analysisEach 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
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.
Holder balances as recorded by the audit of Sep 4, 2026
The 3 remaining pairs hold $910 between them and are not listed. The risk score reads depth across every pair.
The LP tokens of the analysed pool are not locked or burned, so whoever holds them can withdraw that liquidity.
0xc647…3d7f0xfb4b…bb0a0xa928…faea0xa730…37570x24dc…0cbe0xe99b…318c0x2e63…32020xe953…4b890xdefe…fba00xc4ca…632eNo privileged address appears among these holders: the unlocked liquidity sits with independent providers, not with the deployer.
The source code for the contract at address was not provided or verified on the block explorer. This prevents any meaningful security analysis, including checks for common vulnerabilities like reentrancy, access control flaws, or integer overflows. Lack of transparency significantly hinders trust and makes it impossible for users or auditors to verify the contract's intended behavior.
Verify the contract's source code on the block explorer (e.g., BaseScan) immediately. This allows for public scrutiny and enables a proper security audit to be conducted. Ensure that the verified code accurately reflects the deployed bytecode.
Unresolved
Regardless of the contract's complexity, comprehensive testing is a critical component of smart contract security. This includes unit tests, integration tests, and fuzz testing to cover various scenarios, edge cases, and potential attack vectors. Without robust testing, even well-designed contracts can harbor subtle bugs.
Implement a thorough testing suite covering all functions, access control mechanisms, and potential interaction flows. Utilize tools like Hardhat, Foundry, or Truffle for testing, and consider property-based testing (fuzzing) to explore unexpected inputs and states.
Unresolved
Smart contract security is an ongoing process. Even after initial deployment, changes in the ecosystem, new attack vectors, or protocol upgrades can introduce new risks. Regular security audits help maintain the integrity and safety of the protocol over its lifecycle.
Establish a schedule for periodic security audits, especially before significant upgrades or changes to the protocol's core logic. Engage reputable security firms to conduct these audits and address any identified vulnerabilities promptly.
Unresolved
No contract source code was provided for analysis. Therefore, a comprehensive security audit could not be performed. This report outlines general security considerations and highlights the critical need for source code verification and thorough auditing.
Without access to the contract's source code, a technical security assessment (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control) cannot be performed. Key areas like reentrancy, integer overflows, and access control mechanisms cannot be evaluated. It is crucial for all deployed contracts to have verified source code to enable public scrutiny and security analysis.
An assessment of economic (7.4 Economic) and governance (7.5 Governance) risks is not possible without understanding the contract's logic and its interaction with other protocols. This includes evaluating tokenomics, fee structures, and administrative privileges. Transparency in these areas is vital for user trust and protocol stability.
Without source code, it is impossible to determine if the contract utilizes an upgradeability pattern (7.7 Upgrades) or to assess its safety. Upgradeability introduces its own set of risks, such as proxy misconfigurations or logic errors in new implementations. Operational risks (7.8 Operations) related to upgrades also cannot be evaluated.
It is strongly recommended that all deployed smart contracts have their source code publicly verified on block explorers.
This transparency is fundamental for security analysis, community trust, and allows for independent audits. Future deployments should prioritize comprehensive testing, formal verification, and independent security audits before going live on mainnet.
Free for any token on the record. It links to this page and always shows the current score and the date it was checked.
Score changes are recorded as dated snapshots — history is append-only and cannot be edited.
The Alphabet Inc. (GOOGLC) contract on Base is 0xb2000000000000000000002d0ba3164cc74f58b7. Compare it with the address the project itself publishes before trading: other contracts can carry the same name and ticker.
Quantum Audit's risk score for Alphabet Inc. is 22/100 (Low risk) as of Sep 4, 2026, computed by a deterministic function from on-chain facts — Contract verified: Verified; Liquidity lock: Not locked; Upgradeability: Fixed code; Honeypot: None found; Buy / sell tax: 0% / 0%. A score is a dated snapshot of those facts, not a guarantee; each one is listed on this page.
Liquidity lock: Not locked (as of Sep 4, 2026). Total DEX liquidity: $1.40M.
As of Sep 4, 2026, the 10 largest holders own 72.4% of the supply. The Holders section on this page shows who they are by holder type.
Our AI-powered scanner gives you a deeper, real-time smart contract analysis — free, with every scoring factor shown.
Get Detailed Audit Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page
