Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Google T-REX a Scam?

TREXBase
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

A comprehensive security audit could not be performed as the source code for the contract at 0xb12456b5ca0993be1be6b2f76504d38b1dc91111 was not provided.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k
  • Token age < 7 days
Exact factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (74.3% total → 36.0% effective; 10.4% in EOAs, 63.9% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k ($16,439 across 1 pairs — thin market)
  • 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 43 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipUnknown
MintNo mint
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
63.9%Contracts10.4%25.7%Everyone else
63.9%Contracts10.4%25.7%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
74.3%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking63.9%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell10.4%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply25.7%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads36.0%
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$16.4K

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$16.4KShare of depth100.0%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder35.9%
Top-3 Unlocked73.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0x02f4…30b50xc5b6…07740xe0dd…f3df0x72b5…5a230x05f6…d904

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

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Missing Source Code for Comprehensive Audit

The source code for the contract at address 0xb124…1111 was not provided for this audit. A comprehensive security assessment, including detailed analysis of architecture, code security, access control, economic models, and upgradeability, cannot be performed without the full source code.I-01

Issue

The source code for the contract at address was not provided for this audit. A comprehensive security assessment, including detailed analysis of architecture, code security, access control, economic models, and upgradeability, cannot be performed without the full source code.

Fix

Always provide the complete and verified source code for all contracts intended for audit. Ensure the provided source code matches the deployed bytecode.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Recommendation for Comprehensive Testing

Even with well-written code, smart contracts can harbor subtle bugs. Comprehensive testing is a critical step in identifying and mitigating potential vulnerabilities before deployment. This includes unit tests, integration tests, and property-based/fuzz testing.I-02

Issue

Even with well-written code, smart contracts can harbor subtle bugs. Comprehensive testing is a critical step in identifying and mitigating potential vulnerabilities before deployment. This includes unit tests, integration tests, and property-based/fuzz testing.

Fix

Implement a robust testing suite covering all critical functions and edge cases. Utilize tools for fuzz testing and property-based testing to explore unexpected states and inputs.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Consideration of Formal Verification

For highly critical smart contracts, especially those managing significant value or complex logic, formal verification can provide a higher degree of assurance than traditional testing methods. It mathematically proves the correctness of the code against a set of specifications.I-03

Issue

For highly critical smart contracts, especially those managing significant value or complex logic, formal verification can provide a higher degree of assurance than traditional testing methods. It mathematically proves the correctness of the code against a set of specifications.

Fix

Consider applying formal verification techniques to critical components of the smart contract system to mathematically prove desired security properties and invariants.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

A comprehensive security audit could not be performed as the source code for the contract at 0xb12456b5ca0993be1be6b2f76504d38b1dc91111 was not provided. The analysis is based solely on the provided metadata, and no specific vulnerabilities could be identified.

Technical10/10Low risk

Due to the absence of source code, a detailed technical analysis of the contract's architecture, code security, and access control mechanisms (7.1, 7.2, 7.3) could not be conducted. Therefore, no specific technical strengths or weaknesses can be identified.

Governance2/10High risk

Without the contract's source code, it is impossible to assess potential economic vulnerabilities (7.4), governance mechanisms (7.5), or external dependencies (7.6). No specific economic or governance risks can be identified at this time.

Upgrades6/10Medium risk

The upgradeability status and associated risks (7.7) cannot be determined without access to the contract's source code. Operational aspects (7.8) also remain unassessable.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

For any smart contract deployment, it is crucial to conduct a thorough security audit based on the complete and verified source code.

This includes reviewing architecture, access control, economic models, and upgrade mechanisms. Implement comprehensive testing, including unit, integration, and fuzz testing, and consider formal verification for critical components. Ensure all external dependencies are well-understood and audited.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
Type-
NetworkBase
Token age1d
Contract0xb124…1111
Deployer0xe7a6…bfc9
Badge for your website
Google T-REX 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, 202632Low
  2. Aug 17, 202656Medium

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

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Google T-REX?

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