Quantum Audit Logo

Is Cubed a Scam?

Early-stage security check — honeypot & rug-pull analysis

Cubed CUBE
0xbbbd…ba0f
Arbitrum
Not verifiedThis 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.
Last checked 8d ago 1 audit on record New Launch · 23h old
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Critical Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

No contract source code was provided for the address 0xbbbd01e1c7e0ef880d3d728d789d987e75f2ba0f. Therefore, a comprehensive security audit could not be performed. The risk assessment and all associated sections are based on a lack of information and default to a neutral 'Medium' level, as no specific vulnerabilities or strengths could be identified.

1 Informational
! Early-stage analysis. This token has limited on-chain history (23h old). New tokens carry elevated risk — data may change rapidly. Always verify independently before investing.
Volume 24h
$169.9K
Liquidity
$90.6K
Price
$0.1536
Token Age
23h
Top 10 Holders
93.9%

Security Findings

1 Info
Info

No code-level findings — contract source is not verified on the explorer

I-01The contract's source code has not been published or verified on the block explorer, so only its deployed bytecode and on-chain behaviour were available. No source-level vulnerability could be confirmed or ruled out. The assessment on this page rests on LP lock/burn state, holder concentration.
IssueThe contract's source code has not been published or verified on the block explorer, so only its deployed bytecode and on-chain behaviour were available. No source-level vulnerability could be confirmed or ruled out. The assessment on this page rests on LP lock/burn state, holder concentration.
FixTreat an unverified contract as unaudited at the code level. Ask the team to verify the source on the explorer, which makes an independent review possible.
StatusAcknowledged

Category Ratings

TechnicalMedium6/10

Due to the absence of source code (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security), a technical assessment of the contract's implementation, design patterns, and potential vulnerabilities (e.g., reentrancy, integer overflows) is not possible. Similarly, access control mechanisms (7.3 Access Control) cannot be evaluated. Without code, no specific strengths or weaknesses can be identified.

GovernanceHigh1/10

Without access to the contract's source code, it is impossible to assess the economic model (7.4 Economic) or governance structure (7.5 Governance) of the protocol. This includes evaluating tokenomics, fee structures, or decision-making processes. External dependencies (7.6 External) and their potential impact also remain unknown.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The upgradeability mechanisms (7.7 Upgrades) of the contract cannot be determined without source code. It is unknown if the contract is upgradeable, uses a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent), or if there are any associated risks with potential upgrade paths. Operational aspects (7.8 Operations) related to upgrades are also unassessable.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedFail
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint Function?
Liquidity LockedPass
Not a ProxyPass
HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

93.9% in top 10
93.9% in wallets0.0% in contracts
Effective Concentration93.9%

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

$90.6K

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 Holder99.8%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

3 addresses
Deployer
0x73ba…1d89
Unlocked LP Held By
0x2e1f…18470x1d2a…158c

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

What Raised This Score

8 factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Contract source NOT verified
  • Top-10 concentration > 70% (93.9% total → 93.9% effective; 93.9% in EOAs, 0.0% in contracts — extreme)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.8% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • Token age < 24h (brand new — bot activity, unproven)

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
Catena Labs (CATE)Critical RiskVangrid (VANG)Critical RiskVision (VSN)Critical RiskUnicity Labs (UNYLA)Critical RiskOrnn Exchange (ORNN)Critical RiskAXIS Robotics (AXROB)Critical Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Cubed?

This token is brand new. Run a deeper AI-powered analysis of the contract code — free and instant.

Get Detailed Audit