Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is CoW Protocol Token Safe?

COWBase
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
Chart
High RiskHow is this score calculated?
How the score breaks downratings: 10 is safest
Technical6/10Governance2/10Upgrades3/10Checks passed2 of 5Findings1 Medium · 1 Low · 2 Info4
SummaryAI Copilot

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract implements a standard ERC-20 token with specific functionalities for cross-chain bridging, allowing a designated bridge address to mint and burn tokens.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership not renounced
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
  • 1 Medium finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Ownership NOT renounced (admin/mint authority retained)
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (84.4% total → 42.4% effective; 14.4% in EOAs, 70.0% in contracts — moderate)
  • 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 = 99% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 99% of DEX liquidity)
  • 1 Medium finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit

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 42 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRetained
MintMintable
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
70.0%Contracts14.4%Wallets15.6%Everyone else
70.0%Contracts14.4%Wallets15.6%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
84.4%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking70.0%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell14.4%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply15.6%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads42.4%
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$80.8K across 2 pairs

The risk score reads depth across every pair.

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$80.4KShare of depth99.4%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0x5bd3…d4e9

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

Security Findings

1 Medium1 Low2 Info
Medium

Centralization of Mint/Burn Authority

The BRIDGE address has exclusive control over the mint and burn functions, allowing it to arbitrarily increase or decrease the token supply. While this is an intended design for a bridged token (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance), it represents a significant centralization point. A compromise of the BRIDGE contract or its private keys would allow an attacker to manipulate the token supply, potentially devaluing the token or causing economic instability.M-01

Issue

The BRIDGE address has exclusive control over the mint and burn functions, allowing it to arbitrarily increase or decrease the token supply. While this is an intended design for a bridged token (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance), it represents a significant centralization point. A compromise of the BRIDGE contract or its private keys would allow an attacker to manipulate the token supply, potentially devaluing the token or causing economic instability.

Fix

Ensure the BRIDGE contract itself is highly secure, audited, and follows best practices for access control (e.g., multi-signature wallets, time-locks, robust governance). Implement comprehensive monitoring for Mint and Burn events to detect anomalous activity promptly. While this contract's design is sound, the security of the overall system heavily relies on the BRIDGE's integrity.

Status

Unresolved

Low

Immutability of Bridge Address

The BRIDGE address is set as an immutable variable in the constructor and cannot be changed after deployment (7.1 Architecture, 7.8 Operations). While this provides certainty and prevents unauthorized changes, it means that if the underlying bridge contract needs to be upgraded, replaced, or if its address changes for any reason, this OptimismMintableERC20 contract would need to be redeployed, or a new token contract would need to be deployed to point to the new bridge.L-01

Issue

The BRIDGE address is set as an immutable variable in the constructor and cannot be changed after deployment (7.1 Architecture, 7.8 Operations). While this provides certainty and prevents unauthorized changes, it means that if the underlying bridge contract needs to be upgraded, replaced, or if its address changes for any reason, this OptimismMintableERC20 contract would need to be redeployed, or a new token contract would need to be deployed to point to the new bridge.

Fix

This is a design choice. If operational flexibility for bridge upgrades is desired without redeploying the token, consider a pattern where the BRIDGE address can be updated by a trusted entity (e.g., a governance contract or multi-sig) through a controlled mechanism. However, this introduces additional complexity and potential attack surface, so the current immutable design is acceptable if redeployment is a viable strategy for bridge changes.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Lack of Emergency Pause Mechanism

The contract lacks a general Pausable mechanism (e.g., from OpenZeppelin) that could halt mint and burn operations in an emergency (7.8 Operations). While the onlyBridge modifier restricts these functions, a Pausable contract could provide an additional layer of defense, allowing a trusted entity to temporarily stop critical operations in case of a severe vulnerability in the bridge, the token, or an external dependency.I-01

Issue

The contract lacks a general Pausable mechanism (e.g., from OpenZeppelin) that could halt mint and burn operations in an emergency (7.8 Operations). While the onlyBridge modifier restricts these functions, a Pausable contract could provide an additional layer of defense, allowing a trusted entity to temporarily stop critical operations in case of a severe vulnerability in the bridge, the token, or an external dependency.

Fix

Consider integrating an OpenZeppelin Pausable contract, controlled by a robust governance mechanism (e.g., a multi-sig wallet or DAO). This would provide an emergency stop-gap measure, offering more control during critical incidents. Evaluate the trade-offs between added complexity and enhanced emergency response capabilities.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Informational Semver Usage

The contract inherits from Semver to provide a version string (e.g., '1.0.0') (7.1 Architecture). This is useful for identification and tracking but does not inherently enforce any upgradeability, compatibility, or security rules. It serves purely as metadata.I-02

Issue

The contract inherits from Semver to provide a version string (e.g., '1.0.0') (7.1 Architecture). This is useful for identification and tracking but does not inherently enforce any upgradeability, compatibility, or security rules. It serves purely as metadata.

Fix

Continue using Semver for clear version tracking. Ensure that any external systems or documentation correctly reference and utilize this version information for clarity and maintenance purposes.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract implements a standard ERC-20 token with specific functionalities for cross-chain bridging, allowing a designated bridge address to mint and burn tokens. The contract utilizes OpenZeppelin libraries for robust ERC-20 implementation and includes a Semver contract for versioning. The access control for critical minting and burning functions is well-defined and restricted to an immutable bridge address. No critical or high-severity vulnerabilities were identified in the contract's implementation.

Technical6/10Medium risk

The contract demonstrates strong technical security (7.2 Code Security) by inheriting from battle-tested OpenZeppelin ERC20 and utilizing Solidity 0.8.15, which includes built-in overflow/underflow checks. Access control (7.3 Access Control) for minting and burning is strictly enforced via the onlyBridge modifier, ensuring only the designated BRIDGE address can perform these operations. The implementation of supportsInterface for IERC165 is correct, enhancing interoperability. No reentrancy or other common technical vulnerabilities were found.

Governance2/10High risk

The economic model (7.4 Economic) of this token relies heavily on the BRIDGE address, which has absolute control over the token's supply through minting and burning. This design introduces a significant centralization risk (7.5 Governance), as a compromise of the BRIDGE contract or its controlling entity could lead to arbitrary token supply manipulation. While this is an inherent design for a bridged token, it's a key point of trust. The REMOTE_TOKEN address is immutable, linking this token permanently to its L1 counterpart.

Upgrades3/10High risk

The contract is not designed to be upgradeable via proxy patterns (7.7 Upgrades), as indicated by the absence of proxy-related code. The BRIDGE and REMOTE_TOKEN addresses are immutable, set during construction. The Semver contract provides versioning information but does not facilitate or enforce upgrade mechanisms. Any significant changes to the bridge or token logic would require a new deployment.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract is well-implemented and secure for its intended purpose as a bridged token.

The primary recommendation is to ensure the security and operational integrity of the BRIDGE contract, as it holds the sole authority over token supply. Consider implementing robust monitoring and multi-signature controls for the BRIDGE's operational keys. For future iterations, evaluate the trade-offs of adding an emergency pause mechanism to provide an additional layer of defense against unforeseen issues.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeToken
NetworkBase
Token age8mo
Contract0xc694…ae69
Deployer0x5b0a…fe42
Badge for your website
CoW Protocol Token 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. Aug 16, 202668High

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the COW contract address?

The CoW Protocol Token (COW) contract on Base is 0xc694a91e6b071bf030a18bd3053a7fe09b6dae69. Compare it with the address the project itself publishes before trading: other contracts can carry the same name and ticker.

Is CoW Protocol Token a scam?

Quantum Audit's risk score for CoW Protocol Token is 68/100 (High risk) as of Sep 4, 2026, computed by a deterministic function from on-chain facts — Contract verified: Verified; Ownership: Retained; Mint: Mintable; Liquidity lock: Not locked; Upgradeability: Fixed code. A score is a dated snapshot of those facts, not a guarantee; each one is listed on this page.

Is COW liquidity locked?

Liquidity lock: Not locked (as of Sep 4, 2026). Total DEX liquidity: $80.8K.

Who holds COW?

As of Sep 4, 2026, the 10 largest holders own 84.4% of the supply. The Holders section on this page shows who they are by holder type.

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
Metronome Synth USDMSUSD · Base68HighSETZBase68HighBaseBase68HighPaperBase68HighEthy AI by VirtualsETHY · Base69HighLingoBase69High

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of CoW Protocol Token?

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