Is Highstreet token (HIGH) Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Findings

1 Low2 Info

Low

Lack of Emergency Pause Functionality

L-01The `HIGH` token contract, being a standard ERC-20, does not include a mechanism to pause transfers or other critical functions in case of an emergency (e.g., a critical vulnerability discovered in an integrated DeFi protocol, or a major market manipulation event). While not a direct vulnerability in the token contract itself, the absence of such a feature can limit the project's ability to react to unforeseen circumstances, potentially mitigating larger losses.

IssueThe `HIGH` token contract, being a standard ERC-20, does not include a mechanism to pause transfers or other critical functions in case of an emergency (e.g., a critical vulnerability discovered in an integrated DeFi protocol, or a major market manipulation event). While not a direct vulnerability in the token contract itself, the absence of such a feature can limit the project's ability to react to unforeseen circumstances, potentially mitigating larger losses.

FixConsider implementing a pausable mechanism (e.g., using OpenZeppelin's `Pausable` module) to allow a trusted role (e.g., a multi-sig wallet) to temporarily halt token transfers. This should be used judiciously and only in extreme emergencies, with clear communication to the community.

StatusUnresolved

Info

Centralized Initial Token Distribution

I-01The `HIGH` token's entire supply (100,000,000 * 1e18) is minted to a single `minter` address during contract deployment. This design choice results in a highly centralized initial distribution, where one address holds 100% of the token supply. While not a technical vulnerability, it implies significant control by the `minter` over the token's initial market dynamics and potential for large-scale movements.

IssueThe `HIGH` token's entire supply (100,000,000 * 1e18) is minted to a single `minter` address during contract deployment. This design choice results in a highly centralized initial distribution, where one address holds 100% of the token supply. While not a technical vulnerability, it implies significant control by the `minter` over the token's initial market dynamics and potential for large-scale movements.

FixEnsure the `minter` address is a secure, multi-signature wallet controlled by trusted parties. Clearly communicate the distribution strategy and the role of the `minter` address to the community to manage expectations regarding centralization and potential market impact.

StatusUnresolved

Info

Immutability and Lack of Administrative Flexibility

I-02The `HIGH` token contract is deployed as a standalone, non-upgradeable contract with no administrative functions beyond the standard ERC-20 interface. There are no owner-controlled `mint`, `burn`, `setTax`, or similar functions. This immutability ensures predictable behavior and reduces attack surface, but it also means the contract cannot be modified or enhanced post-deployment, nor can any administrative actions be taken (e.g., recovering accidentally sent tokens, adjusting parameters).

IssueThe `HIGH` token contract is deployed as a standalone, non-upgradeable contract with no administrative functions beyond the standard ERC-20 interface. There are no owner-controlled `mint`, `burn`, `setTax`, or similar functions. This immutability ensures predictable behavior and reduces attack surface, but it also means the contract cannot be modified or enhanced post-deployment, nor can any administrative actions be taken (e.g., recovering accidentally sent tokens, adjusting parameters).

FixThis is a fundamental design choice. If immutability is the desired goal, ensure all design decisions are final and thoroughly reviewed. If future flexibility or limited administrative control is ever anticipated, consider an upgradeable proxy pattern or adding specific, carefully scoped administrative functions (e.g., `recoverERC20`) controlled by a multi-signature wallet.

StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow8/10

The technical architecture (7.1) of the HIGH token is straightforward, implementing the ERC-20 standard. Code security (7.2) is robust, primarily due to the reliance on OpenZeppelin's highly audited and widely used ERC-20 library. The custom logic is minimal and correctly implemented, utilizing Solidity 0.8.x which includes default overflow/underflow checks. Access control (7.3) is limited to the standard ERC-20 functions, with no additional administrative roles or complex permissions, which simplifies the security model.

GovernanceHigh1/10

The economic model (7.4) of the HIGH token is simple: a fixed total supply minted entirely at deployment. There are no mechanisms for inflation or deflation post-deployment, ensuring predictable supply. Governance (7.5) is not implemented within the contract itself, as it functions purely as a token. The initial distribution is centralized, with all tokens minted to a single address, which is a design choice that should be managed carefully. External dependencies (7.6) are minimal, limited to standard ERC-20 interactions, with no oracle or complex external calls.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The HIGH token contract is not designed with any upgradeability mechanisms (7.7). It is deployed as an immutable contract, meaning its logic cannot be changed post-deployment. This eliminates upgrade-related risks such as proxy misconfigurations or malicious upgrade paths, but also removes the flexibility to fix potential future issues or add new features. Operational risks (7.8) are primarily related to the correct deployment parameters, specifically the `minter` address.

Security Checklist

3/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership Renounced?

No Mint FunctionPass

Liquidity LockedFail

Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

68.6% in top 10

52.6% in wallets16.0% in contracts

Effective Concentration59.0%

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

$82.7K across 3 pairs

Uniswap v2WETHanalysed$81.9K Uniswap v4ETH$683 Uniswap v2UNI$139

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 Holder79.6%

Top-3 Unlocked91.0%

Key Addresses

11 addresses

Deployer

0xba92…f26c

Unlocked LP Held By

0x94b5…84410xd163…d3dd0x4aeb…a04e0xe78b…6a110x459f…ec980x598b…02600x0a6d…b1480xd2c8…67c40x944b…a3110x1bd0…7273

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 > 50% (68.6% total → 59.0% effective; 52.6% in EOAs, 16.0% in contracts — heavy)
Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
LP top1 unlocked holder = 79.6% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 99% of DEX liquidity)
LP top3 unlocked holders = 91.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 99% 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

Final Recommendation

AI Copilot

The Highstreet Token contract is a well-structured ERC-20 implementation, benefiting significantly from its reliance on OpenZeppelin's battle-tested libraries.…

Read the verdictHide

The minimal custom logic further reduces the attack surface. Projects should ensure the `minter` address used during deployment is a secure, multi-signature wallet to mitigate risks associated with the centralized initial token distribution. While the contract's immutability provides security through predictability, consider the implications of lacking emergency response mechanisms like a pause function for future integrations or unforeseen events.

Contract

TypeToken

Audit History

1 audit on record

Aug 1640

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

Is Highstreet token Safe?

Security Findings

Lack of Emergency Pause Functionality

Centralized Initial Token Distribution

Immutability and Lack of Administrative Flexibility

Category Ratings

Security Checklist

Holder Composition

Liquidity Depth

LP Distribution

Key Addresses

What Raised This Score

Related Audits

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Highstreet token?