Quantum Audit Logo

Is Alphabet Inc. Safe?

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

Alphabet Inc. GOOGLC
0xb200…58b7
Base Not verifiedLast checked 2d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Medium Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

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.

3 Informational
Volume 24h
$3.88M
Liquidity
$1.11M
Price
$338.2900
Token Age
1y
Top 10 Holders
72.4%

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Missing Source Code for Deployed Contract

I-01The source code for the contract at address 0xb200…58b7 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.
IssueThe 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.
FixVerify 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Importance of Comprehensive Testing

I-02Regardless 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.
IssueRegardless 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.
FixImplement 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Recommendation for Regular Security Audits

I-03Smart 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.
IssueSmart 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.
FixEstablish 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.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

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.

GovernanceHigh3/10

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.

UpgradesMedium6/10

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.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint Function?
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass
HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

72.4% in top 10
0.0% in wallets72.4% in contracts
Effective Concentration29.0%

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

$1.40M across 13 pairs
AerodromeUSDCanalysed$1.11M79.1%Uniswap v3USDC$131.2K9.4%AerodromeWETH$94.5K6.7%PancakeswapUSDC$35.5K2.5%Uniswap v4USDC$15.6K1.1%Uniswap v4ETH$4.9K0.3%
Show 4 more pairsShow less
Uniswap v4ETH$4.1K0.3%Uniswap v3USDC$3.3K0.2%Uniswap v4RWAGMI$2.7K0.2%Hydrex CLAMMWETH$1.3K0.1%

The 3 remaining pairs hold $910 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 Holder58.7%
Top-3 Unlocked91.2%

Key Addresses

10 addresses
Unlocked LP Held By
0xc647…3d7f0xfb4b…bb0a0xa928…faea0xa730…37570x24dc…0cbe0xe99b…318c0x2e63…32020xe953…4b890xdefe…fba00xc4ca…632e

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

What Raised This Score

6 factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Top-10 concentration > 20% (72.4% total → 29.0% effective; 0.0% in EOAs, 72.4% in contracts — mild)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 58.7% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 79% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 91.2% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 79% 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
NVIDIA Corporation (NVDAC)Medium RiskCLAWNCHMedium RiskKittehCoin (MEOW)Medium RiskBLUE CHIP (BLUECHIP)Low RiskBankrCoin (BNKR)Medium Risko1.exchange (O)Medium Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Alphabet Inc.?

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

Get Detailed Audit