Quantum Audit Logo

Is Artificial Superintelligence Alliance Safe?

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

Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page →

Artificial Superintelligence Alliance FET
0xaea4…ad85
Ethereum Not verifiedLast checked 2d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Medium Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

This audit covers the provided Solidity source code for the EnumerableSet and Address utility libraries. These libraries, originating from OpenZeppelin, are foundational components designed for efficient data management and address utility functions. The code exhibits high quality, robust design, and adherence to best practices. No critical or high-severity vulnerabilities were identified. The prefill indicated 'FetchToken' as the contract name, but the provided source code is for these libraries.

3 Informational
Volume 24h
$47.1K
Liquidity
$1.16M
Price
$0.1534
Token Age
3y
Top 10 Holders
45.0%

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Older Solidity Compiler Version

I-01The contract uses Solidity version 0.6.2. While functional, newer versions (e.g., 0.8.x) include built-in overflow/underflow checks for `uint` types, reducing the need for `SafeMath` or similar libraries. They also offer other language improvements and bug fixes.
IssueThe contract uses Solidity version 0.6.2. While functional, newer versions (e.g., 0.8.x) include built-in overflow/underflow checks for `uint` types, reducing the need for `SafeMath` or similar libraries. They also offer other language improvements and bug fixes.
FixConsider upgrading to a more recent Solidity compiler version (e.g., 0.8.x) to benefit from enhanced security features and improved developer experience. Thoroughly test all contract logic after any compiler upgrade.
StatusUnresolved
Info

`Address.isContract` Limitations (Documented)

I-02The `Address.isContract` function, while useful, has known limitations as explicitly documented within the library itself. It may return `false` for contracts under construction, addresses where a contract will be created, or addresses where a contract was destroyed. Relying solely on `isContract` to distinguish between EOAs and contracts can lead to incorrect assumptions.
IssueThe `Address.isContract` function, while useful, has known limitations as explicitly documented within the library itself. It may return `false` for contracts under construction, addresses where a contract will be created, or addresses where a contract was destroyed. Relying solely on `isContract` to distinguish between EOAs and contracts can lead to incorrect assumptions.
FixUsers of `Address.isContract` should be fully aware of its limitations and avoid making critical security decisions based solely on its return value. For robust contract interaction checks, consider alternative methods or multi-factor verification where applicable.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Non-Guaranteed Element Order in EnumerableSet

I-03The `EnumerableSet` library explicitly states that 'No guarantees are made on the ordering' of elements, and the order 'may change when more values are added or removed.' This is a consequence of the 'swap and pop' optimization used for O(1) removals, which reorders elements to maintain efficiency.
IssueThe `EnumerableSet` library explicitly states that 'No guarantees are made on the ordering' of elements, and the order 'may change when more values are added or removed.' This is a consequence of the 'swap and pop' optimization used for O(1) removals, which reorders elements to maintain efficiency.
FixDevelopers utilizing `EnumerableSet` must not rely on the order of elements when iterating or accessing them via the `at(index)` function. If a specific order is required, an alternative data structure or an additional mapping to maintain order should be implemented by the consuming contract.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow8/10

The technical architecture of the EnumerableSet and Address libraries is highly robust and well-optimized. EnumerableSet provides O(1) operations for add, remove, contains, and length, utilizing a 'swap and pop' mechanism for efficient deletions (7.1 Architecture). Code security (7.2 Code Security) is strong, with careful handling of array indexing and explicit checks like `require(set._values.length > index, 'EnumerableSet: index out of bounds')` in `_at`. Access control (7.3 Access Control) is not directly applicable as these are libraries, but their internal functions are private, ensuring proper encapsulation. The `Address.isContract` function clearly documents its limitations, which is a good practice.

GovernanceHigh2/10

These libraries do not implement any direct governance mechanisms (7.5 Governance) or economic models (7.4 Economic). Their function is purely utility-based, providing data structures and address-related helpers to other contracts. Therefore, they do not introduce inherent governance or economic risks to a protocol. Any such risks would stem from the contracts that utilize these libraries, not the libraries themselves.

UpgradesHigh3/10

Libraries in Solidity are immutable once deployed and cannot be upgraded (7.7 Upgrades). Contracts that use these libraries are compiled with the library's bytecode linked, meaning any changes to the library would require redeploying the dependent contracts. This design choice ensures stability and predictability for contracts relying on these foundational components. There are no specific upgrade safety issues within the libraries themselves, but users should be aware of the immutability implications.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint FunctionFail
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

45.0% in top 10
21.0% in wallets24.1% in contracts
Effective Concentration30.6%

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

$1.58M across 7 pairs
Uniswap v3WETHanalysed$1.16M73.1%Uniswap v4ETH$319.2K20.2%Uniswap v4ETH$64.3K4.1%Uniswap v3WETH$32.0K2.0%SupernovaWETH$7.5K0.5%Uniswap v3OCEAN$2.0K0.1%
Show 1 more pairShow less
Uniswap v2WETH$1530.0%

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 Holder68.8%
Top-3 Unlocked95.6%

Key Addresses

11 addresses
Deployer
0xa47c…7ac5
Unlocked LP Held By
0x830b…0c300xb57f…37a10xdaa1…130b0x9361…4fae0x25c9…c88b0xb26c…17270xc224…9ffd0x5ba4…7bd70x6d70…dc810x3e70…844a

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)
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (45.0% total → 30.6% effective; 21.0% in EOAs, 24.1% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 68.8% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 73% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 95.6% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 73% 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

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Artificial Superintelligence Alliance a scam?

The contract for Artificial Superintelligence Alliance (FET) is verified and its ownership has been renounced, which are positive indicators for transparency and reduced centralized control. While these steps mitigate some fundamental scam risks, investors should still consider other high-risk factors identified, such as token concentration and unlocked liquidity, to form a comprehensive view of its investment profile.

Is Artificial Superintelligence Alliance safe to buy?

Given the high-risk score of 65/100, FET presents notable safety concerns for investors. Key factors include the top 10 holders controlling 50.1% of the supply, creating significant centralization risk. Furthermore, the liquidity is not locked, exposing investors to potential rug pull scenarios where liquidity could be suddenly withdrawn. The existence of a mint function also introduces inflationary potential.

Has Artificial Superintelligence Alliance been audited?

The FET token contract has been verified, confirming its source code matches the deployed code on the blockchain for transparency. This allows public inspection of its functionality. However, contract verification is not the same as a comprehensive security audit by an independent third party, which thoroughly assesses for vulnerabilities and potential exploits.

Related Audits

6 more on the record
OndoMedium RiskRequest Token (REQ)Medium RiskIdentity.md (IMD)Medium RiskHighstreet token (HIGH)Medium RiskOutBurnMedium RiskChainlink (LINK)Medium Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Artificial Superintelligence Alliance?

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

Get Detailed Audit