Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Dexe Safe?

DEXEBNB Chain
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
Technical6/10Governance1/10Upgrades1/10Checks passed1 of 5Findings1 Medium · 1 Low · 2 Info4
SummaryAI Copilot

This audit report covers the provided OpenZeppelin utility libraries (StorageSlot and Address) and general observations regarding the Beacon proxy structure for the BridgeToken protocol.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership not renounced — owner is a contract
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Proxy contract
  • Complex proxy pattern
  • Top-10 concentration > 50%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $10k
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.7%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
  • 1 Medium finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Ownership NOT renounced — owner is a contract (governance/executor, not an EOA)
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Proxy contract (upgradeable — admin can replace logic)
  • Complex proxy pattern (BEACON)
  • Top-10 concentration > 50% (93.9% total → 68.0% effective; 50.6% in EOAs, 43.3% in contracts — heavy)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $10k ($3,970 across 6 pairs — easily drained)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.7% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 98% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 98% 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 41 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRetained
MintMintable
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityUpgradeable

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
43.3%Contracts50.6%Wallets6.1%Everyone else
43.3%Contracts50.6%Wallets6.1%
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
93.9%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking43.3%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell50.6%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply6.1%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads68.0%
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$4.0K across 6 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$3.9KShare of depth98.5%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder99.7%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0x5d8e…c82d0x34b9…ed160x899d…7cca0xb754…9c05

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

Unverified Beacon Admin Control

The audit notes indicate that the administrator for the Beacon contract (0xb6f6…a6e7), which dictates the implementation address for all associated proxies, could not be classified. For a Beacon proxy system, the security of the Beacon's admin is paramount. An unmanaged, single-point-of-failure, or compromised Beacon admin could lead to unauthorized upgrades, potentially deploying malicious contract logic and compromising user funds or protocol integrity.M-01

Issue

The audit notes indicate that the administrator for the Beacon contract (), which dictates the implementation address for all associated proxies, could not be classified. For a Beacon proxy system, the security of the Beacon's admin is paramount. An unmanaged, single-point-of-failure, or compromised Beacon admin could lead to unauthorized upgrades, potentially deploying malicious contract logic and compromising user funds or protocol integrity.

Fix

Provide the source code for the Beacon contract and clarify its administrative control mechanisms. It is strongly recommended that the Beacon's admin be secured by a robust multi-signature wallet (e.g., Gnosis Safe) or a time-locked governance contract to prevent single points of failure and provide a delay for critical changes.

Status

Unresolved

Low

Core Contract Logic Not Provided for Audit

The primary business logic for the BridgeToken (proxy) and its TokenImplementation (implementation) contracts was not provided for review. This audit is therefore limited to the provided OpenZeppelin libraries and general observations about the proxy structure. A comprehensive security assessment of the protocol's specific functionalities, access control, economic model, and potential vulnerabilities (e.g., reentrancy, integer overflows) cannot be performed without the full source code.L-01

Issue

The primary business logic for the BridgeToken (proxy) and its TokenImplementation (implementation) contracts was not provided for review. This audit is therefore limited to the provided OpenZeppelin libraries and general observations about the proxy structure. A comprehensive security assessment of the protocol's specific functionalities, access control, economic model, and potential vulnerabilities (e.g., reentrancy, integer overflows) cannot be performed without the full source code.

Fix

Provide the complete source code for all contracts comprising the BridgeToken protocol, including the BridgeToken proxy, TokenImplementation, and the Beacon contract, for a full and thorough security audit. This will enable a detailed analysis of the entire system's security posture.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Standard Library Usage

The provided contract code utilizes well-audited and widely adopted OpenZeppelin libraries (StorageSlot.sol and Address.sol). These libraries are known for their high quality, security, and adherence to best practices in smart contract development. Their inclusion contributes positively to the overall code reliability.I-01

Issue

The provided contract code utilizes well-audited and widely adopted OpenZeppelin libraries (StorageSlot.sol and Address.sol). These libraries are known for their high quality, security, and adherence to best practices in smart contract development. Their inclusion contributes positively to the overall code reliability.

Fix

Continue to leverage well-vetted and community-audited libraries like OpenZeppelin to reduce the risk of introducing common vulnerabilities. Ensure that the specific versions used are up-to-date and free from known exploits.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Beacon Proxy Pattern Identified

The contract at 0x6e88…ce3e is identified as a Beacon proxy, delegating its logic to an implementation contract (0x7f8c…f22a) via a Beacon contract (0xb6f6…a6e7). This pattern allows multiple proxies to share and upgrade their implementation logic through a single Beacon, promoting efficiency and consistency.I-02

Issue

The contract at is identified as a Beacon proxy, delegating its logic to an implementation contract () via a Beacon contract (). This pattern allows multiple proxies to share and upgrade their implementation logic through a single Beacon, promoting efficiency and consistency.

Fix

Ensure that the Beacon proxy pattern is fully understood and correctly implemented across all associated contracts. Pay close attention to the security of the Beacon contract itself, as it is a central point of control for upgrades.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This audit report covers the provided OpenZeppelin utility libraries (StorageSlot and Address) and general observations regarding the Beacon proxy structure for the BridgeToken protocol. The core business logic for the BridgeToken and its TokenImplementation was not provided, limiting the scope of this audit. A key concern identified is the unverified administration of the Beacon contract, which controls the upgrade path for all associated proxies.

Technical6/10Medium risk

The provided code consists of OpenZeppelin's StorageSlot and Address libraries (7.2 Code Security). These libraries are widely used, well-audited, and adhere to high security standards, providing robust utilities for storage management and safe address interactions. No direct vulnerabilities were found within these specific library implementations. However, the core logic of the BridgeToken and its TokenImplementation was not available for technical review, which limits the assessment of the overall system's technical security (7.1 Architecture).

Governance1/10High risk

The economic and governance aspects of the BridgeToken's core functionality could not be assessed due to the absence of its source code (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance). However, the identified Beacon proxy pattern introduces a critical governance component: the Beacon contract's administrator. The audit notes indicate that the Beacon admin's control could not be classified, posing a potential risk if not adequately secured. An unmanaged or compromised Beacon admin could lead to unauthorized upgrades, impacting the protocol's integrity and user funds (7.3 Access Control).

Upgrades1/10High risk

The protocol utilizes a Beacon proxy pattern, allowing for efficient upgrades of multiple proxy instances through a single Beacon contract (7.7 Upgrades). While this pattern is robust, the security of the Beacon contract's administrator is paramount, as this entity controls which implementation contract is used by all associated proxies. The inability to classify the Beacon admin's control mechanism represents a significant upgrade safety concern, as unauthorized parties could potentially deploy malicious implementations. Proper access control for the Beacon admin is crucial for maintaining upgrade integrity (7.3 Access Control).

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is critical to ensure that the Beacon contract's administrator is secured with robust access control mechanisms, ideally a multi-signature wallet or a time-locked governance contract.

Provide the full source code for the BridgeToken and its TokenImplementation contracts, along with the Beacon contract, for a comprehensive security audit. This will allow for a thorough review of the core business logic, access control, economic model, and the complete upgradeability architecture.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeBridgeToken
NetworkBNB Chain
Token age2y
Contract0x6e88…ce3e
Deployer0x4706…1492
Proxy Upgrade Controls
Proxy TypeBeacon
ImplementationVerified source
Badge for your website
Dexe 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. Sep 4, 202684High
  2. Jul 23, 202676High
  3. Jul 22, 202651Medium

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

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
ArciumARX · BNB Chain84HighSolsticeSLX · BNB Chain84HighFLOKIBNB Chain84HighBlock StreetBSB · BNB Chain85CriticalLIGHTBNB Chain85CriticalCea IndustriesBNC4 · BNB Chain85Critical

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Dexe?

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