This audit was conducted without access to the contract's source code. Therefore, a comprehensive security analysis for vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, access control, or economic exploits could not be performed. The findings are limited to observations based on the provided metadata, primarily highlighting the risks associated with interacting with an unverified contract.
Honeypot, rug-pull and ownership checks
Is Basepepe a Scam?
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 →This audit was conducted without access to the contract's source code.
Read the full analysis- Ownership status UNKNOWN
- Mint capability UNKNOWN
- Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
- Liquidity < $50k
- LP top1 unlocked holder = 98.2%
- LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
- Token age < 30 days
Exact 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
- Liquidity < $50k ($44,294 across 5 pairs — thin market)
- LP top1 unlocked holder = 98.2% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 99% of DEX liquidity)
- LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 99% of DEX liquidity)
- 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
Security Checklist
as of audit · Sep 4Holders
as of audit · Sep 4, 2026- Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking20.7%
- Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell11.3%
- Everyone elsethe rest of the supply68.0%
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- Uniswap v4ETHAnalysed$44.0K99.2%
- Uniswap v4USDC$1170.3%
- Uniswap v4USDC$1150.3%
- Uniswap v4USDC$920.2%
- Uniswap v4USDC$170.0%
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.
0x0121…75c90x87d8…d0dbNo privileged address appears among these holders: the unlocked liquidity sits with independent providers, not with the deployer.
Security Findings
InfoUnverified Source Code
The source code for the contract at 0xb200…ff01 is not verified on the block explorer. This lack of transparency prevents users and auditors from understanding the contract's functionality, logic, and potential vulnerabilities. It significantly increases the risk of hidden malicious code or unintended behavior.I-01
Issue
The source code for the contract at is not verified on the block explorer. This lack of transparency prevents users and auditors from understanding the contract's functionality, logic, and potential vulnerabilities. It significantly increases the risk of hidden malicious code or unintended behavior.
Fix
Verify the contract's source code on the block explorer. This allows for public scrutiny and independent security analysis, building trust within the community. Ensure the verified code precisely matches the deployed bytecode.
Status
Unresolved
InfoUnknown Contract Functionality and Risks
Without access to the source code, the specific functionality, purpose, and internal mechanisms of the contract are unknown. This makes it impossible to assess common security risks such as reentrancy, access control flaws, integer overflows/underflows, or economic manipulation vectors (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic). Users interact with this contract at a heightened risk.I-02
Issue
Without access to the source code, the specific functionality, purpose, and internal mechanisms of the contract are unknown. This makes it impossible to assess common security risks such as reentrancy, access control flaws, integer overflows/underflows, or economic manipulation vectors (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic). Users interact with this contract at a heightened risk.
Fix
Provide comprehensive documentation and, ideally, verified source code to explain the contract's intended functionality, design choices, and any known limitations or risks. This transparency is crucial for informed decision-making by users.
Status
Unresolved
InfoImmutability of Unverified Code
The contract is not identified as a proxy, implying it is immutable once deployed. While immutability can be a security feature for well-audited code, for an unverified contract, it means any potential vulnerabilities or bugs present in the bytecode cannot be patched or upgraded (7.7 Upgrades). This locks in any undiscovered flaws, making them permanent and unfixable without a complete redeployment to a new address.I-03
Issue
The contract is not identified as a proxy, implying it is immutable once deployed. While immutability can be a security feature for well-audited code, for an unverified contract, it means any potential vulnerabilities or bugs present in the bytecode cannot be patched or upgraded (7.7 Upgrades). This locks in any undiscovered flaws, making them permanent and unfixable without a complete redeployment to a new address.
Fix
If the contract is intended to be immutable, ensure its source code is rigorously audited and verified before deployment. For unverified immutable contracts, users should be aware that any issues found later cannot be remediated.
Status
Unresolved
Analysis
AI Copilotas of audit · Sep 4Without access to the contract's source code, a detailed technical analysis (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control) is not possible. The contract's functionality and internal logic remain unknown, preventing assessment of common vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows. This significantly limits the ability to identify specific code-level security strengths or weaknesses, such as proper input validation or secure access control mechanisms.
A thorough assessment of economic and governance risks (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance) is not feasible without understanding the contract's logic and its interaction with other protocols or assets. Potential issues like oracle manipulation, economic exploits, or centralized control cannot be identified. The lack of transparency prevents evaluating the contract's resilience to market fluctuations or potential governance attacks.
The contract is not identified as a proxy (is_proxy: false), suggesting it is immutable and not directly upgradeable (7.7 Upgrades). While this eliminates upgrade-related risks like improper upgrade logic or proxy storage collisions, it also means any discovered vulnerabilities cannot be patched without a full redeployment. The immutability implies a fixed design, which can be a strength if the code is secure, but a weakness if critical flaws are present.
It is strongly recommended that users exercise extreme caution when interacting with unverified contracts.
Always prioritize contracts with publicly available and audited source code to ensure transparency and accountability. For developers, ensure all deployed contracts have their source code verified on block explorers to provide transparency and enable community scrutiny, which is crucial for building trust and enhancing security.
Contract & Record
Free for any token on the record. It links to this page and always shows the current score and the date it was checked.
- Sep 4, 202635Medium
- Sep 4, 202629Low
Score changes are recorded as dated snapshots — history is append-only and cannot be edited.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the BASEPEPE contract address?
The Basepepe contract on Base is 0xb2000000000000000000002ca4af341e1af6ff01. Compare it with the address the project itself publishes before trading: other contracts can carry the same name and ticker.
Is Basepepe a scam?
Quantum Audit's risk score for Basepepe is 35/100 (Medium 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.
Is BASEPEPE liquidity locked?
Liquidity lock: Not locked (as of Sep 4, 2026). Total DEX liquidity: $44.3K.
Who holds BASEPEPE?
As of Sep 4, 2026, the 10 largest holders own 32.0% of the supply. The Holders section on this page shows who they are by holder type.
Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Basepepe?
Paste the contract address into our AI-powered scanner for a deeper real-time report — free, with every scoring factor shown.
Get Detailed Audit Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page