Is Coinbase Man (BRIAN) Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Findings

1 Info

Info

No issues identified in the reviewed source

I-01The verified source code was reviewed and no issue rising to Informational severity or above was identified. This is a statement about the code that was read, not a guarantee: the review covers the published source only. Fact-layer checks (holder concentration) were applied separately and feed the risk score.

IssueThe verified source code was reviewed and no issue rising to Informational severity or above was identified. This is a statement about the code that was read, not a guarantee: the review covers the published source only. Fact-layer checks (holder concentration) were applied separately and feed the risk score.

FixRe-check after any contract upgrade or ownership change, both of which can alter behaviour without changing this page.

StatusAcknowledged

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

No contract source code was provided for technical analysis. Therefore, an assessment of architecture (7.1), code security (7.2), access control (7.3), and external interactions (7.6) could not be performed. Without code, no specific strengths or vulnerabilities can be identified.

GovernanceHigh3/10

No contract source code was provided, preventing an assessment of economic models (7.4) and governance mechanisms (7.5). Without code, it is impossible to evaluate potential economic exploits or governance centralization risks.

UpgradesMedium6/10

No contract source code was provided, thus an analysis of upgradeability patterns (7.7) and operational procedures (7.8) could not be conducted. It is unknown if the contract is upgradeable or how its operational parameters are managed.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership Renounced?

No Mint Function?

Liquidity LockedFail

Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

30.0% in top 10

7.8% in wallets22.2% in contracts

Effective Concentration16.7%

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

$110.3K across 17 pairs

Uniswap v4ETHanalysed$94.7K Uniswap v4USDC$7.0K Uniswap v4USDC$3.0K Uniswap v4USDC$2.5K Uniswap v4USDC$1.1K Uniswap v4USDC$828

Show 4 more pairsShow less

Uniswap v4ETH$732 Uniswap v4USDC$213 Hydrex CLAMMWETH$143 AerodromeWETH$7

The 7 remaining pairs hold $8 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 Holder100.0%

Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

1 addresses

Unlocked LP Held By

0x575e…fe98

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

What Raised This Score

6 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 top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 86% of DEX liquidity)
LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 86% 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

Is Coinbase Man Safe?