Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Gen Z a Scam?

ZBNB 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 recordNew Launch · 1d old
SummaryAI Copilot

This audit covers the OpenZeppelin Address utility library, a foundational component providing essential low-level address interaction functions.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Top-10 concentration > 50%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
  • Token age < 7 days
Exact factors
  • Top-10 concentration > 50% (77.9% total → 61.6% effective; 50.7% in EOAs, 27.2% in contracts — heavy)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k ($27,704 across 2 pairs — thin market)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • Token age < 7 days (early, volatile)

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

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.

Security Checklist

as of audit · Sep 44 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRenounced
MintNo mint
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
27.2%Contracts50.7%Wallets22.1%Everyone else
27.2%Contracts50.7%Wallets22.1%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
77.9%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking27.2%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell50.7%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply22.1%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads61.6%
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$27.7K across 2 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$27.7KShare of depth100.0%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0xb94f…5030

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

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

isContract Limitations for Security Checks

The isContract function, while useful, has known limitations as explicitly stated in its NatSpec. It returns false for contracts in construction, destroyed contracts, or EOAs, and can be circumvented by calling from a contract constructor. It is explicitly warned against using it to protect against flash loan attacks or to prevent calls from contracts due to composability issues (7.2 Code Security).I-01

Issue

The isContract function, while useful, has known limitations as explicitly stated in its NatSpec. It returns false for contracts in construction, destroyed contracts, or EOAs, and can be circumvented by calling from a contract constructor. It is explicitly warned against using it to protect against flash loan attacks or to prevent calls from contracts due to composability issues (7.2 Code Security).

Fix

Developers should not rely on isContract as a primary security mechanism to distinguish between EOAs and contracts or to prevent specific types of attacks (e.g., flash loans). Instead, robust access control, reentrancy guards, and careful state management should be employed.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Potential Reentrancy with sendValue

The sendValue function, which uses a low-level call to transfer Ether, explicitly warns about the potential for reentrancy vulnerabilities if not used carefully. Control is transferred to the recipient, allowing them to re-enter the calling contract before its state is updated (7.2 Code Security).I-02

Issue

The sendValue function, which uses a low-level call to transfer Ether, explicitly warns about the potential for reentrancy vulnerabilities if not used carefully. Control is transferred to the recipient, allowing them to re-enter the calling contract before its state is updated (7.2 Code Security).

Fix

When using sendValue or any low-level call that transfers value, developers must strictly adhere to the checks-effects-interactions pattern. Implement reentrancy guards (e.g., OpenZeppelin's ReentrancyGuard) on functions that perform external calls and modify state.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Safe Use of Low-Level Call Functions

The Address library provides several functionCall variants for performing low-level call, staticcall, and delegatecall. While these functions include checks for call success and revert reasons, their misuse in a calling contract can lead to unexpected behavior, reentrancy, or incorrect state updates. delegatecall in particular carries significant risk if the target contract is not trusted or properly vetted, as it executes code in the context of the calling contract (7.2 Code Security).I-03

Issue

The Address library provides several functionCall variants for performing low-level call, staticcall, and delegatecall. While these functions include checks for call success and revert reasons, their misuse in a calling contract can lead to unexpected behavior, reentrancy, or incorrect state updates. delegatecall in particular carries significant risk if the target contract is not trusted or properly vetted, as it executes code in the context of the calling contract (7.2 Code Security).

Fix

Developers integrating functionCall, functionStaticCall, or functionDelegateCall must thoroughly understand the implications of low-level calls. Ensure the target contract is trusted, input data is validated, and the calling contract's logic correctly handles potential reentrancy or state changes resulting from the external call. delegatecall should only be used with extreme caution and only with fully trusted and audited implementation contracts.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This audit covers the OpenZeppelin Address utility library, a foundational component providing essential low-level address interaction functions. The code is highly robust and well-tested, with explicit warnings regarding potential misuse patterns. No direct vulnerabilities were found within the library itself; findings are informational, highlighting best practices for integration.

Technical10/10Low risk

The Address library (7.1 Architecture) demonstrates excellent code security (7.2 Code Security) and adherence to best practices. It provides robust functions for low-level calls and address checks, with clear warnings about potential reentrancy in sendValue and limitations of isContract. The library itself is well-tested (7.6 External) and does not implement direct access control (7.3 Access Control), relying on calling contracts for such logic.

Governance3/10High risk

As a foundational utility library, Address.sol does not incorporate specific economic mechanisms (7.4 Economic) or governance structures (7.5 Governance). Its impact on a protocol's economics or governance is indirect, depending entirely on how it is integrated and utilized by higher-level contracts.

Upgrades9/10Low risk

The Address library is a standalone utility and is not designed for direct upgradeability (7.7 Upgrades) in the same manner as a proxy contract. Its immutability ensures consistent behavior for all contracts that link to it. Any changes would require redeployment and updates to all dependent contracts, which is a standard practice for foundational libraries.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

Developers integrating the OpenZeppelin Address library should meticulously review its internal documentation and warnings.

Particular attention must be paid to the safe usage of sendValue to prevent reentrancy, and the limitations of isContract for security-critical decisions. Always apply the checks-effects-interactions pattern and consider using reentrancy guards when performing external calls that transfer value or interact with untrusted contracts.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeToken
NetworkBNB Chain
Token age1d
Contract0x9adc…ffff
Deployer0xa78f…e8f1
Badge for your website
Gen Z 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, 202634Low
  2. Aug 16, 202627Low

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

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Gen Z?

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

Get Detailed Audit Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page