Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is HOME Safe?

Base
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 record
Chart
Medium RiskHow is this score calculated?
How the score breaks downratings: 10 is safest
Technical8/10Governance2/10Upgrades6/10Checks passed3 of 5Findings1 Critical · 3 Info4
SummaryAI Copilot

This report covers a security review of the provided Solidity source code.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership not renounced — strong Multisig
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 97.9%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
  • 1 Critical finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Ownership NOT renounced — strong Multisig (4-of-7)
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (87.8% total → 49.6% effective; 24.1% in EOAs, 63.7% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k ($25,421 across 2 pairs — thin market)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 97.9% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 95% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 95% of DEX liquidity)
  • 1 Critical 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

Security Checklist

as of audit · Sep 43 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRetained
MintNo mint
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
63.7%Contracts24.1%Wallets12.2%Everyone else
63.7%Contracts24.1%Wallets12.2%
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
87.8%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking63.7%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell24.1%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply12.2%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads49.6%
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$25.4K 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$24.2KShare of depth95.0%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder97.9%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0xfa2b…52bb0x8ee4…485a0x0855…7eba

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

Security Findings

1 Critical3 Info
Critical

Missing Core Contract Implementation

The provided source code consists solely of LayerZero v2 interface definitions (e.g., ILayerZeroEndpointV2, ILayerZeroReceiver). The actual implementation code for the HomeCanonical contract, which is the stated target of this audit, was not included. This prevents any meaningful security analysis of the contract's logic, state variables, access control, and potential vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, or specific business logic flaws.C-01

Issue

The provided source code consists solely of LayerZero v2 interface definitions (e.g., ILayerZeroEndpointV2, ILayerZeroReceiver). The actual implementation code for the HomeCanonical contract, which is the stated target of this audit, was not included. This prevents any meaningful security analysis of the contract's logic, state variables, access control, and potential vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, or specific business logic flaws.

Fix

Provide the complete and verified Solidity source code for the HomeCanonical contract, including all its dependencies and libraries, to enable a comprehensive security audit.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Reliance on LayerZero v2 Protocol Security

The HomeCanonical contract, as indicated by the provided interfaces, relies heavily on the LayerZero v2 protocol for cross-chain messaging. The security and integrity of the HomeCanonical contract will be directly dependent on the robustness and security of the underlying LayerZero v2 infrastructure, including its endpoints, message libraries, and relayers. Any vulnerabilities or compromises within the LayerZero v2 protocol could potentially impact the HomeCanonical contract.I-01

Issue

The HomeCanonical contract, as indicated by the provided interfaces, relies heavily on the LayerZero v2 protocol for cross-chain messaging. The security and integrity of the HomeCanonical contract will be directly dependent on the robustness and security of the underlying LayerZero v2 infrastructure, including its endpoints, message libraries, and relayers. Any vulnerabilities or compromises within the LayerZero v2 protocol could potentially impact the HomeCanonical contract.

Fix

While the LayerZero v2 protocol is designed for security, it is crucial for the project team to stay informed about any security updates, audits, or known vulnerabilities related to LayerZero. Implement robust monitoring for cross-chain operations and consider circuit breakers for extreme scenarios.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Unassessable Access Control Mechanisms

Without the implementation code for HomeCanonical, it is impossible to assess the access control mechanisms (7.3 Access Control) governing critical functions. This includes identifying privileged roles (e.g., owner, admin, governor), verifying proper authorization checks (e.g., onlyOwner, require(msg.sender == _someRole)), and ensuring that sensitive operations are adequately protected against unauthorized execution.I-02

Issue

Without the implementation code for HomeCanonical, it is impossible to assess the access control mechanisms (7.3 Access Control) governing critical functions. This includes identifying privileged roles (e.g., owner, admin, governor), verifying proper authorization checks (e.g., onlyOwner, require(msg.sender == _someRole)), and ensuring that sensitive operations are adequately protected against unauthorized execution.

Fix

Once the full contract code is available, a detailed review of all access control patterns should be conducted. Ensure that the principle of least privilege is applied, and that multi-signature wallets are used for critical administrative functions where appropriate.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Unverified Economic and Governance Model

The economic model (7.4 Economic) and governance structure (7.5 Governance) of the HomeCanonical contract cannot be verified or audited without its full implementation. This includes aspects such as fee collection, reward distribution, tokenomics, and any on-chain voting or administrative processes. Unforeseen economic incentives or governance flaws could lead to instability or manipulation.I-03

Issue

The economic model (7.4 Economic) and governance structure (7.5 Governance) of the HomeCanonical contract cannot be verified or audited without its full implementation. This includes aspects such as fee collection, reward distribution, tokenomics, and any on-chain voting or administrative processes. Unforeseen economic incentives or governance flaws could lead to instability or manipulation.

Fix

Upon receiving the full contract code, a thorough review of the economic and governance logic should be performed. This includes simulating various scenarios to identify potential attack vectors or unintended consequences related to incentives, fees, and decision-making processes.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This report covers a security review of the provided Solidity source code. It is important to note that the submitted code consists solely of LayerZero v2 interface definitions. The actual implementation code for the 'HomeCanonical' contract, which is the target of this audit, was not provided. Consequently, a comprehensive security assessment of the contract's logic, state management, access control, and potential vulnerabilities could not be performed. The findings below highlight the critical limitation of this audit due to the absence of the core contract implementation.

Technical8/10Low risk

The technical review was severely limited as only LayerZero v2 interface definitions were provided, not the implementation code for the 'HomeCanonical' contract. This prevents any assessment of the contract's internal logic, state variables, or specific vulnerability patterns (e.g., reentrancy, integer overflows). The interfaces themselves appear standard for LayerZero v2, defining cross-chain messaging functions (7.1 Architecture). However, without the concrete implementation, no code security (7.2 Code Security) or access control (7.3 Access Control) analysis could be performed.

Governance2/10High risk

The economic and governance aspects of the 'HomeCanonical' contract could not be evaluated due to the absence of its implementation code. This means no assessment of tokenomics, fee structures, incentive mechanisms, or governance decision-making processes (7.5 Governance) was possible. Cross-chain protocols inherently carry economic risks (7.4 Economic) related to message integrity and potential bridge exploits, which cannot be mitigated or analyzed without the specific contract logic. External dependencies (7.6 External) on LayerZero v2 are present, but their integration cannot be reviewed.

Upgrades6/10Medium risk

The upgradeability mechanisms (7.7 Upgrades) of the 'HomeCanonical' contract could not be assessed as its implementation code was not provided. Without the contract's source, it is impossible to determine if it uses a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent), if it has an owner-controlled upgrade path, or if it is immutable. This poses a significant risk as potential upgrade vulnerabilities or lack of upgradeability cannot be identified. Operational aspects (7.8 Operations) related to upgrades are also unassessable.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is critically important to provide the complete and correct Solidity source code for the 'HomeCanonical' contract to enable a thorough security audit.

Without the full implementation, any assessment of the contract's security posture is impossible, leaving it vulnerable to unknown risks. Once the full source code is available, a comprehensive audit should be conducted to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities related to logic, access control, economic models, and upgrade mechanisms.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeSolidity 0.8.22
NetworkBase
Token age1y
Contract0x4bfa…714f
Deployer0x81f6…2977
Badge for your website
HOME 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. Jul 23, 202652Medium

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the HOME contract address?

The HOME contract on Base is 0x4bfaa776991e85e5f8b1255461cbbd216cfc714f. Compare it with the address the project itself publishes before trading: other contracts can carry the same name and ticker.

Is HOME a scam?

Quantum Audit's risk score for HOME is 52/100 (Medium risk) as of Sep 4, 2026, computed by a deterministic function from on-chain facts — Contract verified: Verified; Ownership: Retained; Mint: No mint; Liquidity lock: Not locked; Upgradeability: Fixed code. A score is a dated snapshot of those facts, not a guarantee; each one is listed on this page.

Is HOME liquidity locked?

Liquidity lock: Not locked (as of Sep 4, 2026). Total DEX liquidity: $25.4K.

Who holds HOME?

As of Sep 4, 2026, the 10 largest holders own 87.8% of the supply. The Holders section on this page shows who they are by holder type.

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
CTRBase52MediumDegenBase52MediumGyndoreGYND · Base52MediumHIVEBase52MediumVenice TokenVVV · Base51MediumAUTONOMOPOLYAUTONO · Base53Medium

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of HOME?

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

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