Quantum Audit Logo

Is BLUE CHIP Safe?

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

BLUE CHIP BLUECHIP
0xb200…4a01
Base Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

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.

3 Informational
Volume 24h
$1.77M
Liquidity
$471.9K
Price
$0.01351
Token Age
9d
Top 10 Holders
9.3%

Security Findings

Info

Source Code Not Provided

I-01The source code for the contract at 0xb200…4a01 was not provided for analysis. This prevents any form of static or dynamic code analysis.
IssueThe source code for the contract at was not provided for analysis. This prevents any form of static or dynamic code analysis.
FixProvide the full and verified Solidity source code for the contract. It is best practice to verify contract source code on block explorers.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Inability to Assess Technical Security

I-02Without 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).
IssueWithout 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).
FixEnsure that the contract's source code is made available for a thorough security review to identify and mitigate potential technical risks.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Inability to Assess Economic and Upgrade Risks

I-03The 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.
IssueThe 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.
FixProvide the source code to allow for a comprehensive review of the contract's economic design, governance structure, and upgrade path, if any.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

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.

GovernanceMedium4/10

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.

UpgradesMedium6/10

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.

Security Checklist

Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint Function?
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass
HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

3.9% in wallets5.4% in contracts
Effective Concentration6.0%

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

Show 4 more pairsShow less

The 7 remaining pairs hold $53 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 Holder40.1%
Top-3 Unlocked95.1%

Key Addresses

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.

What Raised This Score

  • 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

Related Audits

FAILow RiskNVIDIA Corporation (NVDAC)Medium RiskSAIRILow RiskAlphabet Inc. (GOOGLC)Medium RiskCoinbase Wrapped Hyperliquid (CBHYPE)Low RiskplumberLow Risk

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