Is Jerry the goat (JERRY) Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Findings

3 Info

Info

No Source Code Provided for Analysis

I-01The audit was requested for a contract address (0xb200…eb01) on the Base network, but no corresponding Solidity source code was supplied. This significantly limits the scope and depth of the security assessment.

IssueThe audit was requested for a contract address () on the Base network, but no corresponding Solidity source code was supplied. This significantly limits the scope and depth of the security assessment.

FixAlways provide the complete and verified source code for any smart contract intended for audit. This allows for static analysis, manual review, and identification of specific vulnerabilities and design flaws.

StatusUnresolved

Info

Contract Functionality Undetermined

I-02Without the source code, the exact functionality, purpose, and intended behavior of the contract at address 0xb200…eb01 cannot be determined. This prevents an assessment of its architecture (7.1 Architecture) and potential economic implications (7.4 Economic).

IssueWithout the source code, the exact functionality, purpose, and intended behavior of the contract at address cannot be determined. This prevents an assessment of its architecture (7.1 Architecture) and potential economic implications (7.4 Economic).

FixFuture audit requests should include a clear description of the contract's intended functionality, its role within the broader protocol, and any relevant documentation (e.g., whitepapers, design specifications).

StatusUnresolved

Info

Inability to Identify Specific Vulnerabilities

I-03Due to the absence of source code, it was impossible to identify specific technical vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, access control flaws (7.3 Access Control), or other common smart contract security issues (7.2 Code Security).

IssueDue to the absence of source code, it was impossible to identify specific technical vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, access control flaws (7.3 Access Control), or other common smart contract security issues (7.2 Code Security).

FixA full audit with source code is essential to uncover and mitigate specific vulnerabilities. Until such an audit is performed, the contract's security posture remains unverified.

StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

Due to the absence of source code (7.2 Code Security), a detailed technical analysis of the contract's implementation, architecture (7.1 Architecture), and access control mechanisms (7.3 Access Control) could not be conducted. No specific strengths or weaknesses related to code quality or security patterns can be identified. The technical risk is considered low by default as no vulnerabilities could be observed.

GovernanceHigh2/10

Without access to the contract's source code, it is impossible to evaluate its economic model (7.4 Economic) or governance structure (7.5 Governance). There is no information regarding tokenomics, fee structures, or decision-making processes. External dependencies (7.6 External) also cannot be determined. The economic and governance risk is considered low by default due to the lack of identifiable issues.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The contract's upgradeability features (7.7 Upgrades) and operational procedures (7.8 Operations) cannot be assessed without source code. It is unknown if the contract employs a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) or if it is immutable. Therefore, no specific upgrade safety issues or operational risks can be identified. The upgrade risk is considered low by default.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership Renounced?

No Mint Function?

Liquidity LockedFail

Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

6.6% in top 10

2.5% in wallets4.2% in contracts

Effective Concentration4.1%

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

$29.0K across 7 pairs

Uniswap v4ETHanalysed$28.3K Uniswap v4ETH$563 Uniswap v4USDC$91 Uniswap v4USDC$17 Uniswap v4Basecat$6 Uniswap v4USDC$1

Show 1 more pairShow less

Uniswap v4USDT$1

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 Holder71.4%

Top-3 Unlocked99.8%

Key Addresses

4 addresses

Unlocked LP Held By

0x6cb2…c1bd0xdc4f…127a0x170f…7cec0x9133…5c7c

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)
Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
Liquidity < $50k ($28,989 across 7 pairs — thin market)
LP top1 unlocked holder = 71.4% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 98% of DEX liquidity)
LP top3 unlocked holders = 99.8% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 98% of DEX liquidity)

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

Is Jerry the goat Safe?

Security Findings

No Source Code Provided for Analysis

Contract Functionality Undetermined

Inability to Identify Specific Vulnerabilities

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 Jerry the goat?