On-chain security analysis — is it a scam or legit?
No 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 4 remaining pairs hold $27 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.
0xb012…f4e10xa730…37570x14e7…96370x4a4c…9cc70xe99b…318c0x24dc…0cbe0x354a…9e0cNo privileged address appears among these holders: the unlocked liquidity sits with independent providers, not with the deployer.
The source code for the contract at is not publicly verified on the Base network block explorer. This prevents transparency and independent review.
Verify the contract source code on the block explorer (e.g., Basescan) to enable transparency and allow for public scrutiny and security analysis.
Unresolved
Due to the absence of source code, a thorough security audit covering common vulnerabilities (e.g., reentrancy, access control, integer issues, oracle manipulation) could not be performed.
Provide the full Solidity source code for a complete security assessment to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Unresolved
Without source code, the exact functionality, state variables, and logic of the contract remain unknown, making it impossible to understand its intended behavior or potential attack vectors.
Document the contract's intended functionality and provide the source code for verification to ensure clarity and trust.
Unresolved
Users interacting with a contract without verified source code face unquantifiable risks, as malicious or buggy logic cannot be ruled out or identified by external parties.
Prioritize transparency by verifying source code to build user trust and allow for informed decision-making regarding interaction with the contract.
Unresolved
No source code was provided for analysis. Therefore, a comprehensive security audit could not be performed. The findings below are general informational points regarding best practices and the implications of unaudited code.
Without access to the contract's source code, a technical security assessment (7.2 Code Security) cannot be performed. This prevents verification of common vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, or access control flaws (7.3 Access Control). The architecture (7.1 Architecture) and operational aspects (7.8 Operations) also remain unverified, posing an unknown risk.
The economic model (7.4 Economic) and governance mechanisms (7.5 Governance) cannot be assessed without source code. This means potential economic exploits, such as flash loan attacks or oracle manipulation, cannot be identified. External dependencies (7.6 External) also remain unknown, which could introduce unforeseen risks.
Without source code, it is impossible to determine if the contract employs an upgrade pattern (7.7 Upgrades) like UUPS or Transparent proxies. This lack of information prevents an assessment of upgrade safety, potential risks during upgrades, or the immutability of the contract. The absence of an upgrade mechanism could also limit future adaptability.
It is strongly recommended that all deployed smart contracts have publicly verified source code.
This transparency is crucial for community trust and allows for independent security reviews. Without source code, users interact with the contract at a significantly elevated, unquantifiable risk. Deploying contracts without verified source code is a critical security anti-pattern.
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 Apple Inc. (AAPLC) contract on Base is 0xb200000000000000000000c2e324d24d7eecd1fb. 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 Apple Inc. is 17/100 (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: $1.12M.
As of Sep 4, 2026, the 10 largest holders own 69.0% 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
