Quantum Audit Logo

Is EVAA Safe?

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

Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page →

EVAA EVAA
0xaa03…28c1
BNB Chain Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → High Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

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.

6 Informational
Volume 24h
$193.2K
Liquidity
$144.9K
Price
$0.6701
Token Age
9mo
Top 10 Holders
82.4%

Security Findings

6 Info
Info

Informational - Only Interfaces Provided

I-01The 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.
IssueThe 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.
FixThis 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Informational - Broad Pragma Directive

I-02The `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.
IssueThe `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.
FixConsider 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Informational - Reliance on Audited OpenZeppelin Standards

I-03The 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.
IssueThe 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.
FixContinue 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Informational - No Access Control Mechanisms Defined

I-04As 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.
IssueAs 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.
FixAny 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Informational - No Complex External Interactions

I-05The 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.
IssueThe 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.
FixWhile 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.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Informational - No Operational Procedures Defined

I-06The 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.
IssueThe 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.
FixFor 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.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow8/10

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 vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows within the provided code (7.2 Code Security). The architecture (7.1 Architecture) is straightforward, defining standard interfaces, which is a robust design choice.

GovernanceMedium6/10

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 specific implementation of these interfaces in a functional contract.

UpgradesLow7/10

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.

Security Checklist

4/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership RenouncedPass
No Mint FunctionFail
Liquidity LockedPass
Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

82.4% in top 10
31.6% in wallets50.8% in contracts
Effective Concentration51.9%

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

$241.5K across 7 pairs
Pancakeswap v3USDTanalysed$144.9K60.0%Pancakeswap v2USDT$40.6K16.8%UniswapUSDT$22.2K9.2%UniswapUSDT$18.9K7.8%Pancakeswap v3USDT$14.7K6.1%Pancakeswap v3USDC$1530.1%
Show 1 more pairShow less
UniswapWBNB$130.0%

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
0xb8b3…3426
Unlocked LP Held By
0xec1b…28030xa0fd…985b

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

What Raised This Score

5 factors
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Top-10 concentration > 50% (82.4% total → 51.9% effective; 31.6% in EOAs, 50.8% in contracts — heavy)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.9% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 60% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 60% 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

Related Audits

6 more on the record
Baby Ansem (BABYANSEM)High RiskBubblemaps (BMT)High RiskPIZZAHigh RiskDGrid AI (DGAI)High RiskStupid Kid (傻孩子)High RiskChainOpera AI (COAI)High Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of EVAA?

Our AI-powered scanner gives you a deeper, real-time smart contract analysis — free, with every scoring factor shown.

Get Detailed Audit