Quantum Audit Logo

Is Coinbase Wrapped Hyperliquid Safe?

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

Coinbase Wrapped Hyperliquid CBHYPE
0xb200…479e
Base Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Low Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

This audit report is based on the provided contract address 0xb200000000000000000000451d033a5000cb479e on the Base network. No source code was provided for analysis, therefore a comprehensive security audit could not be performed. The risk levels assigned reflect the absence of information rather than an assessment of the contract's inherent security. A full audit requires access to the complete and verified source code.

3 Informational
Volume 24h
$1.06M
Liquidity
$587.5K
Price
$87.0220
Token Age
1y
Top 10 Holders
47.0%

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Missing Source Code for Audit

I-01The smart contract at address 0xb200…479e was provided without its corresponding Solidity source code. This prevents any meaningful static or dynamic analysis of the contract's implementation, logic, and potential vulnerabilities (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control).
IssueThe smart contract at address was provided without its corresponding Solidity source code. This prevents any meaningful static or dynamic analysis of the contract's implementation, logic, and potential vulnerabilities (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control).
FixProvide the complete and verified Solidity source code for the contract. Ideally, the code should be verified on a block explorer (e.g., Basescan) to ensure transparency and immutability of the deployed logic.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Unverified Contract on Block Explorer

I-02The contract at 0xb200…479e is not verified on the Base network's block explorer. This lack of verification hinders public transparency and makes it difficult for users and auditors to confirm the deployed bytecode matches any claimed source code (7.8 Operations).
IssueThe contract at is not verified on the Base network's block explorer. This lack of verification hinders public transparency and makes it difficult for users and auditors to confirm the deployed bytecode matches any claimed source code (7.8 Operations).
FixVerify the contract's source code on the Base network's block explorer. This step is crucial for transparency, user trust, and facilitating future audits or incident response.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Inability to Assess Architectural Design

I-03Without access to the source code, it is impossible to evaluate the contract's architectural design, dependencies, and overall system integration (7.1 Architecture). This includes understanding its role within a larger protocol, its interaction with other contracts, and potential external risks (7.6 External).
IssueWithout access to the source code, it is impossible to evaluate the contract's architectural design, dependencies, and overall system integration (7.1 Architecture). This includes understanding its role within a larger protocol, its interaction with other contracts, and potential external risks (7.6 External).
FixProvide the source code and, if applicable, architectural diagrams or documentation detailing the contract's role, dependencies, and interaction patterns within the broader protocol.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

A technical review (7.2 Code Security) could not be conducted due to the absence of source code. Without access to the Solidity implementation, it is impossible to assess common vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, or access control flaws (7.3 Access Control). The current technical risk level is 'Low' only because no vulnerabilities could be identified, not because the code is confirmed secure.

GovernanceHigh3/10

An economic and governance review (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance) could not be performed without understanding the contract's logic and intended functionality. Potential risks related to tokenomics, flash loan attacks, or oracle manipulation cannot be assessed. The current governance and economic risk level is 'Low' due to lack of information, not confirmed safety.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The upgradeability status (7.7 Upgrades) of the contract cannot be determined without source code. It is unknown if the contract utilizes a proxy pattern (UUPS, Transparent) or if it is immutable. This prevents assessment of potential upgrade safety issues or risks associated with upgrade mechanisms. The current upgrade risk level is 'Low' due to lack of information.

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

47.0% in top 10
0.0% in wallets47.0% in contracts
Effective Concentration18.8%

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

$587.7K across 9 pairs
AerodromeUSDCanalysed$587.5K100.0%Hydrex CLAMMUSDC$1100.0%Uniswap v4ETH$100.0%AerodromeUSDC$60.0%

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
0x5eb9…63e9

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

What Raised This Score

5 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)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)

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
SAIRILow RiskplumberLow RiskFAILow RiskKeeta (KTA)Low RiskApple Inc. (AAPLC)Low RiskvAPI Network (VAPI)Low Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Coinbase Wrapped Hyperliquid?

Our AI-powered scanner gives you a deeper, real-time smart contract analysis — free, with every scoring factor shown.

Get Detailed Audit