Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Baby Asteroid Safe?

BABYASTEROIDBNB Chain
Not verified This record has not gone through deep verification and is not being monitored. The score is a dated snapshot — the token’s risk can change at any time.Own this token? Put it under verification →
Last checked Sep 4, 2026 · 1 audit on record
SummaryAI Copilot

The audit of the BabyAsteroid token contract, an ERC20 implementation, identified a critical functional flaw: the token's total supply is permanently zero, rendering it non-functional.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • 1 Critical finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • 1 Critical finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit

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

Security Checklist

as of audit · Sep 45 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRenounced
MintNo mint
Liquidity lockLocked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
17.1%Contracts2.9%80.0%Everyone else
17.1%Contracts2.9%80.0%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
20.0%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking17.1%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell2.9%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply80.0%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads9.8%
How holder types affect the score

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

Liquidity

as of audit · Sep 4$93.8K across 3 pairs
LP tokensLocked

The LP tokens of the analysed pool are locked or burned.

Analysed pool$93.8KShare of depth100.0%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0x1e78…71400x0ed9…9706

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

Security Findings

1 Critical1 Low1 Info
Critical

Token Supply Always Zero, Rendering Token Non-Functional

The ERC20 contract's _totalSupply variable is declared but never initialized in the constructor, nor is there any _mint function provided within the contract to increase this supply. Consequently, totalSupply() will always return 0, and no tokens can ever be created or transferred. This makes the token completely non-functional and unusable.C-01

Issue

The ERC20 contract's _totalSupply variable is declared but never initialized in the constructor, nor is there any _mint function provided within the contract to increase this supply. Consequently, totalSupply() will always return 0, and no tokens can ever be created or transferred. This makes the token completely non-functional and unusable.

Fix

Implement a _mint function, typically restricted to an owner or deployer, to allow for the creation of new tokens. Alternatively, initialize _totalSupply and mint an initial supply to a designated address within the constructor. Ensure that the _balances mapping is updated accordingly during minting.

Status

Unresolved

Low

Non-Standard Decimals Value

The decimals() function returns a value of 9. While technically valid, the common standard for ERC20 tokens is 18 decimals, mimicking Ethereum's Wei. Deviating from this standard can lead to display inconsistencies or misinterpretations in wallets, exchanges, and DApps that assume 18 decimals.L-01

Issue

The decimals() function returns a value of 9. While technically valid, the common standard for ERC20 tokens is 18 decimals, mimicking Ethereum's Wei. Deviating from this standard can lead to display inconsistencies or misinterpretations in wallets, exchanges, and DApps that assume 18 decimals.

Fix

Consider changing the decimals() function to return 18 for better compatibility and user experience across the broader EVM ecosystem. If 9 decimals is an intentional design choice, ensure all front-end applications and integrations are aware of and correctly handle this value.

Status

Unresolved

Info

ERC20 approve Race Condition Warning

The contract's comments correctly highlight the known race condition vulnerability associated with the approve function, where an attacker might exploit unfortunate transaction ordering to spend both the old and new allowance amounts. The contract provides increaseAllowance and decreaseAllowance as mitigations.I-01

Issue

The contract's comments correctly highlight the known race condition vulnerability associated with the approve function, where an attacker might exploit unfortunate transaction ordering to spend both the old and new allowance amounts. The contract provides increaseAllowance and decreaseAllowance as mitigations.

Fix

Educate users and integrated applications to prefer increaseAllowance and decreaseAllowance over directly calling approve when modifying an existing allowance. This helps prevent potential double-spend scenarios related to the approve race condition.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

AI Copilotas of audit · Sep 4
Executive SummaryWhat the contract is and what the review found

The audit of the BabyAsteroid token contract, an ERC20 implementation, identified a critical functional flaw: the token's total supply is permanently zero, rendering it non-functional. This issue prevents any tokens from being minted or transferred. Other findings include a non-standard decimals value and an informational note regarding the ERC20 approve race condition.

Technical8/10Low risk

The contract is based on a standard ERC20 implementation, demonstrating good code structure and adherence to common patterns (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security). However, a critical functional flaw exists where the _totalSupply is never initialized or increased, and no _mint function is provided, making the token non-functional (C-01). The decimals() function returns 9, which is non-standard but not a vulnerability (L-01). The contract correctly includes increaseAllowance and decreaseAllowance to mitigate the approve race condition (I-01).

Governance7/10Low risk

The contract implements a standard ERC20 token with no complex economic models or governance mechanisms (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance). The prefill indicates ownership is renounced, which eliminates central control risks and enhances decentralization (7.3 Access Control). Due to the critical functional flaw (C-01), the economic impact is currently zero as no tokens can exist or be traded.

Upgrades9/10Low risk

The contract is not designed as an upgradeable proxy (7.7 Upgrades). It is a standard, non-upgradeable implementation, which simplifies its architecture and removes upgrade-related risks.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is critical to address the functional flaw where the token's total supply remains zero.

This requires implementing a mechanism, such as a _mint function or initial minting in the constructor, to create and manage the token supply. Without this, the token is unusable. Additionally, consider aligning the decimals() value with the common ERC20 standard of 18 for better compatibility with ecosystem tools.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeToken
NetworkBNB Chain
Token age3mo
Contract0xfecb…6666
Deployer0x6c49…8fa4
Badge for your website
Baby Asteroid security record badge

Free for any token on the record. It links to this page and always shows the current score and the date it was checked.

Audit History
  1. Sep 4, 202627Low
  2. Aug 1, 202626Low

Score changes are recorded as dated snapshots — history is append-only and cannot be edited.

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Baby Asteroid?

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