Quantum Audit Logo

Is FAI Safe?

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

FAI FAI
0xb33f…7935
Base Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Low Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

The provided source code consists entirely of standard OpenZeppelin interfaces for ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155 token errors, as well as the core IERC20 interface. As these are interface definitions without any executable logic or state, they inherently contain no direct vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, access control flaws, or economic exploits. The primary concern identified is a malformed Solidity pragma statement.

1 Low2 Informational
Volume 24h
$81.3K
Liquidity
$2.48M
Price
$0.002411
Token Age
1y
Top 10 Holders
32.2%

Security Findings

1 Low2 Info
Low

No Custom Implementation Logic to Audit

L-01The provided contract code is limited to interface definitions and does not contain any custom business logic, state-modifying functions, or complex interactions. Consequently, common vulnerabilities related to contract implementation (e.g., reentrancy, access control, integer overflows, economic exploits) are not present in this specific codebase (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control).
IssueThe provided contract code is limited to interface definitions and does not contain any custom business logic, state-modifying functions, or complex interactions. Consequently, common vulnerabilities related to contract implementation (e.g., reentrancy, access control, integer overflows, economic exploits) are not present in this specific codebase (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control).
FixThis finding highlights a characteristic rather than a flaw in the interfaces themselves. Any contract that implements these interfaces must be rigorously audited for vulnerabilities in its own custom logic.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Code Consists Solely of Interfaces

I-01The provided Solidity source code defines standard interfaces (IERC20Errors, IERC721Errors, IERC1155Errors, IERC20) without any concrete contract implementations, state variables, or executable logic. This means there are no direct functional vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, access control flaws, or arithmetic issues within this specific codebase.
IssueThe provided Solidity source code defines standard interfaces (IERC20Errors, IERC721Errors, IERC1155Errors, IERC20) without any concrete contract implementations, state variables, or executable logic. This means there are no direct functional vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, access control flaws, or arithmetic issues within this specific codebase.
FixNo direct recommendation for this code. Developers should ensure that any contracts implementing these interfaces are thoroughly audited for security vulnerabilities in their custom logic.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Malformed Solidity Pragma Statement

I-02The pragma statement `pragma solidity ^0.8.13 ^0.8.20;` is syntactically incorrect. A single pragma statement should specify a single version range, e.g., `pragma solidity ^0.8.20;` or `pragma solidity >=0.8.13 <0.9.0;`.
IssueThe pragma statement `pragma solidity ^0.8.13 ^0.8.20;` is syntactically incorrect. A single pragma statement should specify a single version range, e.g., `pragma solidity ^0.8.20;` or `pragma solidity >=0.8.13 <0.9.0;`.
FixCorrect the pragma statement to specify a valid Solidity version range, for example, `pragma solidity ^0.8.20;` to ensure consistent compilation behavior.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

The codebase (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security) consists solely of well-established OpenZeppelin interfaces, which are robust and widely adopted. There is no custom implementation logic, state variables, or external calls that could introduce technical vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows. The code adheres to high standards of clarity and best practices for interface definitions, though a minor issue with the Solidity pragma was noted.

GovernanceHigh3/10

As the provided code comprises only interface definitions, there are no inherent governance mechanisms (7.5 Governance) or economic models (7.4 Economic) to assess. The interfaces themselves do not manage funds, control parameters, or interact with external protocols (7.6 External) in a way that could introduce economic or governance risks.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The provided code consists of interfaces, which are not deployable or upgradeable contracts themselves (7.7 Upgrades). Therefore, there are no upgradeability risks or operational considerations (7.8 Operations) associated with this specific codebase. Any contract implementing these interfaces would need its own upgradeability strategy.

Security Checklist

3/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint FunctionPass
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

32.2% in top 10
21.9% in wallets10.3% in contracts
Effective Concentration26.0%

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

$2.75M across 4 pairs
AerodromeWETHanalysed$2.48M90.2%Uniswap v3WETH$254.0K9.2%AerodromeWETH$16.5K0.6%AerodromeAERO$60.0%

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 Holder98.9%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

5 addresses
Deployer
0x01ea…7a87
Unlocked LP Held By
0xc606…36e60x8e38…e3420xf0a0…3e100x729d…9f35

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

What Raised This Score

6 factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Top-10 concentration > 20% (32.2% total → 26.0% effective; 21.9% in EOAs, 10.3% in contracts — mild)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 98.9% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 90% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 90% of DEX liquidity)
  • 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

Related Audits

6 more on the record
SAIRILow RiskBLUE CHIP (BLUECHIP)Low RiskCoinbase Wrapped Hyperliquid (CBHYPE)Low RiskplumberLow RiskKeeta (KTA)Low RiskNVIDIA Corporation (NVDAC)Medium Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of FAI?

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

Get Detailed Audit