Quantum Audit Logo

Is Eunice a Scam?

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

Eunice EUIAI
0x171f…6d7c
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 today 1 audit on record New Launch · 1d old
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → High Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

This report is based on an audit request for the contract at 0x171f70d6f5b843d7656436af1abdfd646bca6d7c on Arbitrum. No source code was provided for analysis, which severely limits the scope and depth of this security assessment. Therefore, no specific vulnerabilities or strengths could be identified within the contract's logic. The risk levels are set to 'Low' by default due to the absence of findings, but this does not imply the contract is secure.

1 Medium8 Informational
! Early-stage analysis. This token has limited on-chain history (1d old). New tokens carry elevated risk — data may change rapidly. Always verify independently before investing.
Volume 24h
$103.1K
Liquidity
$76.6K
Price
$0.0111
Token Age
1d
Top 10 Holders
83.5%

Security Findings

1 Med8 Info
Medium

Liquidity not locked

QA-LIQUIDITY0.0% of the pool's LP is burned or time-locked. 100.0% is held, unlocked, by 2 address(es) other than the owner/deployer. One of them — a wallet, 0x59bd…3685 — holds 99.9% and can remove that share at once; who controls it is not visible on-chain, so it is not treated as an independent provider.
Issue0.0% of the pool's LP is burned or time-locked. 100.0% is held, unlocked, by 2 address(es) other than the owner/deployer. One of them — a wallet, 0x59bd…3685 — holds 99.9% and can remove that share at once; who controls it is not visible on-chain, so it is not treated as an independent provider.
FixCheck the lock's end date and beneficiary on the locker's own page before relying on it.
StatusAcknowledged
Info

No Source Code Provided for Audit

I-01The primary limitation of this audit is the absence of the contract's source code. Without the Solidity code, a comprehensive security analysis cannot be performed. This prevents the identification of common vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, access control flaws, or logical errors.
IssueThe primary limitation of this audit is the absence of the contract's source code. Without the Solidity code, a comprehensive security analysis cannot be performed. This prevents the identification of common vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, access control flaws, or logical errors.
FixTo enable a thorough security audit, the complete and verified source code for the contract at must be provided. It is best practice to verify the source code on block explorers like Arbiscan.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Inability to Assess Technical Security

I-02Due to the lack of source code, it was impossible to evaluate the contract's technical security aspects, including its architecture (7.1), code security (7.2), and access control mechanisms (7.3). This means no assessment of potential reentrancy vectors, arithmetic safety, or privilege separation could be made.
IssueDue to the lack of source code, it was impossible to evaluate the contract's technical security aspects, including its architecture (7.1), code security (7.2), and access control mechanisms (7.3). This means no assessment of potential reentrancy vectors, arithmetic safety, or privilege separation could be made.
FixProvide the source code to allow for a detailed review of the contract's technical implementation, including its design patterns, security best practices, and access control logic. This is crucial for identifying and mitigating technical vulnerabilities.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Inability to Assess Economic, Governance, and Upgrade Risks

I-03Without the contract's source code, it is not possible to analyze its economic model (7.4), governance structure (7.5), external dependencies (7.6), upgradeability (7.7), or operational procedures (7.8). Key risks related to tokenomics, administrative control, oracle manipulation, or upgrade path safety remain unassessed.
IssueWithout the contract's source code, it is not possible to analyze its economic model (7.4), governance structure (7.5), external dependencies (7.6), upgradeability (7.7), or operational procedures (7.8). Key risks related to tokenomics, administrative control, oracle manipulation, or upgrade path safety remain unassessed.
FixSubmit the source code to enable a full audit scope, covering economic incentives, governance mechanisms, external interactions, and upgrade strategies. This will allow for a holistic risk assessment beyond just code-level vulnerabilities.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Who holds the supply

QA-HOLDERSThe ten largest holders own 83.5% of supply. Of that, 3.5% in DEX pools — not holders that can sell, so excluded from the concentration score. What remains: 80.1% in wallets, 0.0% in other contracts. The deployer/owner wallet itself holds 8.3%. 2,228 holders in total.
IssueThe ten largest holders own 83.5% of supply. Of that, 3.5% in DEX pools — not holders that can sell, so excluded from the concentration score. What remains: 80.1% in wallets, 0.0% in other contracts. The deployer/owner wallet itself holds 8.3%. 2,228 holders in total.
FixWatch the largest wallets that are not exchanges, pools or locks — those are the ones that can move the price.
StatusAcknowledged
Info

Not listed by any independent source

QA-IDENTITY2,228 holders. Not listed by CoinGecko or any exchange GoPlus tracks. Nothing independent confirms who is behind this token, so every power its contract grants is scored at face value.
Issue2,228 holders. Not listed by CoinGecko or any exchange GoPlus tracks. Nothing independent confirms who is behind this token, so every power its contract grants is scored at face value.
FixMatch the contract address against the project's official channels before trading.
StatusAcknowledged
Info

The market for this token

QA-MARKETLiquidity $77K (DexScreener, all pools). 24h trading volume $103K (DexScreener, all pools).
IssueLiquidity $77K (DexScreener, all pools). 24h trading volume $103K (DexScreener, all pools).
FixSize any position to the liquidity and daily volume shown — they set how much you can sell and at what price.
StatusAcknowledged
Info

Asset class: Project token

QA-PROFILEA token issued by a project for use, governance or fundraising. Scored on its contract and market facts. The class itself adds no points; the contract and market facts decide the score. Basis: no class-specific evidence. Tokenomics — Supply: mint capability could not be read. Control: an owner that could not be resolved. Code: not upgradeable (no proxy). Fees: no buy or sell tax. Market: $77K of DEX liquidity across 1 pools. Launch: 1 days of market history.
IssueA token issued by a project for use, governance or fundraising. Scored on its contract and market facts. The class itself adds no points; the contract and market facts decide the score. Basis: no class-specific evidence. Tokenomics — Supply: mint capability could not be read. Control: an owner that could not be resolved. Code: not upgradeable (no proxy). Fees: no buy or sell tax. Market: $77K of DEX liquidity across 1 pools. Launch: 1 days of market history.
FixCheck the project's own documentation for what the token is used for; this report covers what the contract allows.
StatusAcknowledged
Info

Recently launched — 1 day of market history

QA-RECENTThe token's oldest DEX pool is 1 day old. Age is not part of the risk score — a new token is not a risky one by default — but a short history means fewer trades and holder changes behind the facts in this report.
IssueThe token's oldest DEX pool is 1 day old. Age is not part of the risk score — a new token is not a risky one by default — but a short history means fewer trades and holder changes behind the facts in this report.
FixRe-check ownership, liquidity and holder distribution as the token matures; those are the facts that move early.
StatusAcknowledged

Category Ratings

TechnicalMedium6/10

Due to the absence of source code, a comprehensive technical security analysis (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control) could not be performed. No specific code patterns, vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows, or access control mechanisms could be reviewed. Therefore, no technical strengths or weaknesses can be reported for the contract at .

GovernanceHigh1/10

Without access to the contract's source code, it is impossible to assess economic models (7.4 Economic), governance structures (7.5 Governance), or external dependencies (7.6 External). Key aspects such as tokenomics, fee structures, oracle usage, or administrative privileges cannot be evaluated. Consequently, no specific economic or governance risks or strengths can be identified.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The upgradeability status (7.7 Upgrades) and operational procedures (7.8 Operations) of the contract cannot be determined without its source code. It is unknown if the contract implements a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) or if it is immutable. Therefore, no assessment of upgrade safety or operational risks can be provided.

Security Checklist

1/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedFail
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint Function?
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass
HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

83.5% in top 10
80.1% in wallets0.0% in contracts
Effective Concentration80.1%

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

$76.6K

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 Holder99.9%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

3 addresses
Deployer
0xae36…2e25
Unlocked LP Held By
0x59bd…36850x1d2a…158c

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

What Raised This Score

5 factors
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Liquidity NOT locked (100% of the pool) — held by independent providers — market-depth risk
  • Top-10 concentration > 70% (83.5% total → 80.1% effective; 80.1% in EOAs, 0.0% in contracts; 3.5% burned, locked or in pools excluded)
  • Contract source NOT verified — its logic cannot be read

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
Coinbase Wrapped BTC (CBBTC)High RiskInfini (IFN)High RiskChipHigh RiskAgentum (AGT)High RiskAXIS Robotics (AXROB)High RiskOrnn Exchange (ORNN)High Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Eunice?

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

Get Detailed Audit