Quantum Audit Logo

Is Basecat a Scam?

Honeypot, rug-pull and ownership checks

Basecat BASECAT
0xb200…1d01
Base Not verifiedLast checked 2d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Low Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

This report is based on an audit of an unknown smart contract. No source code was provided for analysis, therefore, a comprehensive security assessment of specific vulnerabilities, architecture, and economic models could not be performed. The findings below represent general security best practices applicable to any EVM smart contract.

4 Informational
i Our automated scanner reviewed Basecat (BASECAT) on Base. 2 of 5 security checks passed — see the full breakdown below.
Volume 24h
$3.56M
Liquidity
$999.3K
Price
$0.04605
Age
14d
Top 10 Holders
15.2%

Security Findings

4 Info
Info

Comprehensive Testing is Essential

I-01Without source code, the extent of testing (unit, integration, fuzzing, formal verification) cannot be verified. Inadequate testing is a common source of vulnerabilities, leading to unexpected behavior or exploits.
IssueWithout source code, the extent of testing (unit, integration, fuzzing, formal verification) cannot be verified. Inadequate testing is a common source of vulnerabilities, leading to unexpected behavior or exploits.
FixEnsure a comprehensive testing suite covers all critical functionalities and edge cases. Implement continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines with automated security checks. Consider formal verification for critical components.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Adherence to Secure Coding Standards

I-02The absence of source code prevents assessment of adherence to secure coding best practices, such as reentrancy guards, integer overflow/underflow checks, and proper error handling. Violations can lead to severe vulnerabilities.
IssueThe absence of source code prevents assessment of adherence to secure coding best practices, such as reentrancy guards, integer overflow/underflow checks, and proper error handling. Violations can lead to severe vulnerabilities.
FixAll smart contract code should strictly follow established secure coding guidelines. Utilize battle-tested libraries (e.g., OpenZeppelin Contracts) and ensure all external calls are handled securely, especially regarding reentrancy and gas limits.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Robust Access Control Mechanisms

I-03Without code, the implementation of access control for sensitive functions cannot be evaluated. Weak or improperly configured access control can allow unauthorized users to perform critical operations, leading to asset loss or system manipulation.
IssueWithout code, the implementation of access control for sensitive functions cannot be evaluated. Weak or improperly configured access control can allow unauthorized users to perform critical operations, leading to asset loss or system manipulation.
FixImplement strict role-based access control (RBAC) for all privileged functions. Utilize `Ownable` or `AccessControl` patterns, and consider multi-signature wallets for critical administrative actions to prevent single points of failure.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Consideration of Upgradeability Patterns

I-04The contract's upgradeability status and pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) are unknown. Improperly implemented upgrade mechanisms can introduce significant risks, including storage collisions, logic errors, or even bricking the contract.
IssueThe contract's upgradeability status and pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) are unknown. Improperly implemented upgrade mechanisms can introduce significant risks, including storage collisions, logic errors, or even bricking the contract.
FixIf the contract is intended to be upgradeable, ensure a well-understood and securely implemented proxy pattern is used. Thoroughly test upgrade paths, including storage layout compatibility, and ensure upgrade permissions are secured, ideally via a multi-signature wallet or governance.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

Due to the absence of smart contract source code, a detailed technical analysis covering architecture (7.1), code security (7.2), and access control (7.3) could not be conducted. Therefore, no specific strengths or weaknesses related to implementation details can be reported. General best practices for secure coding and robust access control are assumed to be critical for any deployed contract.

GovernanceMedium5/10

Without access to the contract's source code, an evaluation of its economic model (7.4) and governance mechanisms (7.5) is not possible. Key considerations such as tokenomics, fee structures, and decision-making processes remain unknown. External dependencies (7.6) and their potential impact on the protocol's stability also cannot be assessed.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The upgradeability strategy (7.7) and operational procedures (7.8) for the contract could not be determined without source code. It is crucial for any production system to have a well-defined and secure upgrade path, if applicable, and clear operational guidelines for administrators, including multi-signature requirements for critical actions.

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

15.2% in top 10
7.6% in wallets7.5% in contracts
Effective Concentration10.6%

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

$1.92M across 30 pairs
Uniswap v4ETHanalysed$999.3K52.0%Uniswap v3WETH$342.7K17.8%Uniswap v4USDC$312.2K16.2%Uniswap v3USDC$92.5K4.8%Uniswap v4ETH$66.5K3.5%Uniswap v4ETH$47.9K2.5%
Show 4 more pairsShow less
AerodromeWETH$32.2K1.7%Uniswap v4ETH$7.6K0.4%Uniswap v4USDC$4.6K0.2%Uniswap v4ETH$3.4K0.2%

The 20 remaining pairs hold $13.7K 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 Holder13.4%
Top-3 Unlocked30.5%

Key Addresses

10 addresses
Unlocked LP Held By
0xe005…55630x82f6…c6740x5265…52f20x610e…1b650xd847…d6800xcca0…032c0x3739…e8420xee5d…85e40x1222…6d5f0x4108…972a

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

What Raised This Score

4 factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Token age < 30 days (still settling)

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
SKI MASK DOG (SKI)Low RiskClawBankLow RiskSPARKLow RiskRUSSELLLow RiskOpenVPP (OVPP)Low RiskBase Juice (BASEJUICE)Low Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Basecat?

Paste the contract address into our AI-powered scanner for a deeper real-time report — free, with every scoring factor shown.

Get Detailed Audit