Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is BLUE CHIP Safe?

BLUECHIPBase
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

This report is based on an audit request for a contract at the specified address.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 95.1%
  • 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
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 95.1% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 72% 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 44 of 7 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipUnknown
MintUnknown
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code
HoneypotNone found
Buy / sell tax0% / 0%

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
5.4%3.9%90.7%Everyone else
5.4%3.9%90.7%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
9.3%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking5.4%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell3.9%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply90.7%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads6.0%
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$651.3K across 17 pairs
LP tokensNot locked

The LP tokens of the analysed pool are not locked or burned, so whoever holds them can withdraw that liquidity.

Analysed pool$471.9KShare of depth72.5%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder40.1%
Top-3 Unlocked95.1%
Unlocked LP held by
0x68d5…bc200x3b0c…3fcd0xcad1…f7bf0x84ac…f1850xbf3a…19c90xc115…97ce0x70b6…38b60xee57…3d240x189d…1e630xef28…7342

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

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Source Code Not Provided

The source code for the contract at 0xb200…4a01 was not provided for analysis. This prevents any form of static or dynamic code analysis.I-01

Issue

The source code for the contract at was not provided for analysis. This prevents any form of static or dynamic code analysis.

Fix

Provide the full and verified Solidity source code for the contract. It is best practice to verify contract source code on block explorers.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Inability to Assess Technical Security

Without the contract's source code, it is impossible to identify common technical vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows/underflows, access control flaws, or logic errors (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control).I-02

Issue

Without the contract's source code, it is impossible to identify common technical vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows/underflows, access control flaws, or logic errors (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control).

Fix

Ensure that the contract's source code is made available for a thorough security review to identify and mitigate potential technical risks.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Inability to Assess Economic and Upgrade Risks

The absence of source code prevents an assessment of the contract's economic model, governance mechanisms, or upgradeability patterns (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance, 7.7 Upgrades). This leaves potential risks related to economic manipulation, centralized control, or upgrade safety unaddressed.I-03

Issue

The absence of source code prevents an assessment of the contract's economic model, governance mechanisms, or upgradeability patterns (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance, 7.7 Upgrades). This leaves potential risks related to economic manipulation, centralized control, or upgrade safety unaddressed.

Fix

Provide the source code to allow for a comprehensive review of the contract's economic design, governance structure, and upgrade path, if any.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This report is based on an audit request for a contract at the specified address. However, no source code was provided for analysis, preventing a comprehensive security assessment. Therefore, no vulnerabilities could be identified or confirmed.

Technical10/10Low risk

A technical security assessment could not be performed as the contract's source code was not provided. Without access to the Solidity code, it is impossible to analyze for common vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, or access control flaws (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control). Therefore, no specific strengths or weaknesses in the contract's implementation can be reported.

Governance4/10Medium risk

Without the contract's source code, it is impossible to analyze its economic model, tokenomics, or governance mechanisms (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance). Potential risks related to economic manipulation, flash loan attacks, or centralized control cannot be identified. Any assessment of economic stability or governance decentralization is precluded.

Upgrades6/10Medium risk

The upgradeability status of the contract could not be determined without its source code (7.7 Upgrades). It is unknown if the contract implements a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) or if it is immutable. Therefore, risks associated with upgrade safety, such as storage collisions or logic errors during upgrades, cannot be assessed.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

To enable a comprehensive security audit, it is crucial to provide the full and verified source code for the contract.

Without the source code, no security guarantees can be made, and any potential vulnerabilities remain unknown. It is strongly recommended to publish the source code on block explorers and ensure it matches the deployed bytecode.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
Type-
NetworkBase
Token age9d
Contract0xb200…4a01
Badge for your website
BLUE CHIP 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, 202620Low
  2. Aug 30, 202616Low

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

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of BLUE CHIP?

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