Is EVAA Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Checklist

4/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership RenouncedPass

No Mint FunctionFail

Liquidity LockedPass

Not a ProxyPass

Audit History

2 audits on record

Jul 2247Jul 2341

Every audit run adds a dated snapshot — history is append-only and cannot be edited.

Audit Summary

The provided source code consists solely of standard OpenZeppelin interfaces for ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155 tokens, including ERC-6093 custom error definitions. As no executable contract logic was provided, a comprehensive security assessment for functional vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, access control, or economic exploits cannot be performed. The interfaces themselves are well-established and do not introduce inherent vulnerabilities.

Final Recommendation: Since the audit was conducted on interfaces only, the primary recommendation is to ensure that any concrete contract implementations utilizing these interfaces undergo a thorough and independent security audit. This audit should specifically focus on the implemented logic, access control mechanisms, economic models, and potential interactions with external protocols. Adherence to secure development practices and comprehensive testing is crucial for any functional contract built upon these foundational interfaces.

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow

8/10

The provided code consists solely of standard OpenZeppelin interfaces for ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155 tokens, including ERC-6093 custom errors. These interfaces define contract structures and error types without implementing any executable logic. As such, there are no inherent technical vulnerabil

GovernanceLow

7/10

The provided code consists only of interfaces and does not contain any governance or economic mechanisms (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance). Therefore, there are no associated risks related to economic manipulation, tokenomics, or governance flaws. Any economic or governance risks would arise from the s

UpgradesLow

7/10

The provided code defines standard interfaces and does not include any upgradeability patterns (7.7 Upgrades). As interfaces, they are not directly upgradeable contracts. Any contract implementing these interfaces would need to define and manage its own upgradeability strategy, if required.

LP Distribution

Top-1 Unlocked Holder99.9%

Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

What Raised This Score

5 factors

Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
Top-10 concentration > 30% (80.3% total → 49.4% effective; 28.7% in EOAs, 51.6% in contracts — moderate)
LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.9% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 42% of DEX liquidity)
LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 42% of DEX liquidity)
LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked

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 Findings

6 total

6 Info

I-01InformationalUnresolved

Informational - Only Interfaces Provided

The provided source code consists exclusively of standard OpenZeppelin interfaces (IERC20Errors, IERC721Errors, IERC1155Errors, IERC20). There is no executable contract logic, state variables, or function implementations beyond interface definitions. This limits the scope of a security audit to the structural correctness of the interfaces themselves.

Recommendation: This is an observation rather than a vulnerability. Ensure that any actual contract implementations built upon these interfaces are provided for a comprehensive security audit to assess functional risks.

I-02InformationalUnresolved

Informational - Broad Pragma Directive

The `pragma solidity` directive specifies a very broad range (`>=0.4.16 >=0.6.2 >=0.8.4 ^0.8.20 ^0.8.22`). While the contract was compiled with `0.8.28`, a more specific pragma (e.g., `pragma solidity 0.8.28;` or `pragma solidity ^0.8.22;`) is generally recommended. A broad pragma can lead to unexpected behavior or compilation issues with future compiler versions, as breaking changes might be introduced.

Recommendation: Consider narrowing the `pragma solidity` directive to the specific compiler version used for deployment (e.g., `pragma solidity 0.8.28;`) or the narrowest compatible range (e.g., `pragma solidity ^0.8.22;`) to ensure consistent compilation behavior and prevent potential issues with future compiler updates.

I-03InformationalUnresolved

Informational - Reliance on Audited OpenZeppelin Standards

The project leverages well-established and extensively audited OpenZeppelin interfaces (IERC20, IERC721Errors, IERC1155Errors, IERC20Errors). This practice significantly reduces the risk of introducing custom errors or non-standard ERC implementations, contributing to higher overall code quality and security by building on battle-tested components.

Recommendation: Continue to utilize reputable and audited libraries and standards like OpenZeppelin. This is a strong security practice that minimizes the attack surface and leverages community-vetted code.

I-04InformationalUnresolved

Informational - No Access Control Mechanisms Defined

As the provided code consists solely of interfaces, no access control mechanisms (e.g., `Ownable`, `AccessControl`) are defined or implemented (7.3 Access Control). Access control is critical for restricting sensitive operations to authorized entities in functional contracts.

Recommendation: Any concrete contract implementation built upon these interfaces must carefully design and implement robust access control mechanisms to protect sensitive functions and prevent unauthorized actions. Thoroughly audit these access control implementations.

I-05InformationalUnresolved

Informational - No Complex External Interactions

The interfaces define standard token interactions and error types but do not specify any complex external calls or integrations with other protocols (7.6 External). This inherently limits the scope of external attack vectors for the interfaces themselves.

Recommendation: While the interfaces themselves are simple, any implementing contract that interacts with external protocols or contracts should be rigorously audited for reentrancy, unexpected return values, and other external interaction vulnerabilities. Ensure all external calls are handled securely.

I-06InformationalUnresolved

Informational - No Operational Procedures Defined

The provided interfaces do not define any specific operational procedures, roles, or multi-signature requirements (7.8 Operations). Operational security is crucial for managing a deployed protocol, including emergency pauses, parameter changes, and administrative actions.

Recommendation: For any functional contract implementing these interfaces, define clear operational procedures, including multi-signature requirements for critical actions, emergency pause mechanisms, and robust key management practices. These operational aspects should be part of the overall security strategy.

Is EVAA Safe? EVAA