Quantum Audit Logo

Is Jito Staked SOL Safe?

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

Jito Staked SOL JITOSOL
0x97be…34de
Base Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → High Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

The CrossChainERC20 contract implements a standard ERC20 token with specialized cross-chain functionality, allowing a designated bridge contract to mint and burn tokens. The contract leverages Solady for optimized ERC20 functionality and includes the Initializable pattern. Key findings highlight the significant centralization risk associated with the bridge contract and a design choice that limits upgradeability flexibility if used with a proxy.

1 High1 Medium2 Informational
Volume 24h
$1.31M
Liquidity
$14.20M
Price
$134.9400
Token Age
1mo
Top 10 Holders
99.9%

Security Findings

1 High1 Med2 Info
High

Centralization Risk of Bridge Contract

H-01The `CrossChainERC20` contract grants exclusive minting and burning privileges to a single `_BRIDGE` address. This design creates a significant centralization risk, as the security and integrity of the entire token supply are dependent on the security of this single bridge contract. A compromise of the `_BRIDGE` contract could lead to unauthorized minting, burning, or manipulation of the token supply, resulting in severe economic damage to the protocol and its users. This is an inherent design choice for cross-chain tokens but represents a critical operational and economic risk (7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic, 7.8 Operations).
IssueThe `CrossChainERC20` contract grants exclusive minting and burning privileges to a single `_BRIDGE` address. This design creates a significant centralization risk, as the security and integrity of the entire token supply are dependent on the security of this single bridge contract. A compromise of the `_BRIDGE` contract could lead to unauthorized minting, burning, or manipulation of the token supply, resulting in severe economic damage to the protocol and its users. This is an inherent design choice for cross-chain tokens but represents a critical operational and economic risk (7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic, 7.8 Operations).
FixImplement robust security measures for the `_BRIDGE` contract, including multi-signature control, time-locks for critical operations, and comprehensive monitoring. Consider a decentralized bridge architecture or a mechanism for community governance over the bridge in the long term. Establish clear emergency procedures for potential bridge exploits.
StatusUnresolved
Medium

Incompatible Design for Upgradeability (Immutable Bridge in Initializable Contract)

M-01The contract imports `Initializable` and uses the `initializer` modifier, indicating an intent for upgradeability via a proxy pattern. However, the `_BRIDGE` address is declared as `immutable` and set in the constructor. In an upgradeable proxy setup, the constructor of the implementation contract runs only once upon its initial deployment, not when the proxy is initialized or upgraded. This means the `_BRIDGE` address is permanently fixed for this specific implementation contract and cannot be changed through proxy upgrades. This design choice restricts the flexibility of the system, as the critical bridge contract itself cannot be upgraded or replaced without deploying an entirely new pro…
IssueThe contract imports `Initializable` and uses the `initializer` modifier, indicating an intent for upgradeability via a proxy pattern. However, the `_BRIDGE` address is declared as `immutable` and set in the constructor. In an upgradeable proxy setup, the constructor of the implementation contract runs only once upon its initial deployment, not when the proxy is initialized or upgraded. This means the `_BRIDGE` address is permanently fixed for this specific implementation contract and cannot be changed through proxy upgrades. This design choice restricts the flexibility of the system, as the critical bridge contract itself cannot be upgraded or replaced without deploying an entirely new pro…
FixIf upgradeability of the bridge address is desired, refactor `_BRIDGE` to be a regular storage variable. It should then be set during the `initialize` function call, allowing it to be updated via proxy upgrades. If the immutable nature of the bridge is an intentional design constraint, ensure this limitation is clearly documented and understood by all stakeholders.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Lack of Emergency Pause Mechanism

I-01The contract lacks a mechanism to pause critical operations (e.g., minting, burning, or even transfers) in the event of an emergency, such as a detected vulnerability in the bridge contract or a major exploit. While the `onlyBridge` modifier centralizes control, a broader pause functionality can be crucial for damage control (7.8 Operations).
IssueThe contract lacks a mechanism to pause critical operations (e.g., minting, burning, or even transfers) in the event of an emergency, such as a detected vulnerability in the bridge contract or a major exploit. While the `onlyBridge` modifier centralizes control, a broader pause functionality can be crucial for damage control (7.8 Operations).
FixConsider implementing a pause mechanism, potentially controlled by a multi-signature wallet or a governance contract. This would allow the protocol to temporarily halt operations to mitigate damage during an incident or to perform necessary upgrades/fixes.
StatusUnresolved
Info

`_remoteToken` Interpretation is External

I-02The `_remoteToken` variable, a `bytes32` identifier, is intended to represent the corresponding token on a remote chain. Its meaning, uniqueness, and enforcement are entirely external to this contract and depend on the logic implemented within the `_BRIDGE` contract and the remote chain's system. The `CrossChainERC20` contract itself does not validate or interpret this identifier beyond ensuring it's not zero (7.6 External).
IssueThe `_remoteToken` variable, a `bytes32` identifier, is intended to represent the corresponding token on a remote chain. Its meaning, uniqueness, and enforcement are entirely external to this contract and depend on the logic implemented within the `_BRIDGE` contract and the remote chain's system. The `CrossChainERC20` contract itself does not validate or interpret this identifier beyond ensuring it's not zero (7.6 External).
FixEnsure that the `_BRIDGE` contract has robust logic for managing and validating `_remoteToken` identifiers to prevent collisions or misinterpretations across chains. Clear documentation should be provided for how `_remoteToken` values are generated and used within the broader cross-chain ecosystem.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalMedium6/10

The contract is well-structured, inheriting from Solady's optimized ERC20 and Initializable contracts. It uses Solidity 0.8.28, benefiting from built-in overflow/underflow protection. Access control for minting and burning is correctly enforced via an `onlyBridge` modifier, ensuring only the designated bridge can manipulate the token supply (7.3 Access Control). Error handling is explicit with custom errors. The primary technical concern is the interaction between the `immutable _BRIDGE` variable and the `Initializable` pattern, which could pose limitations for future upgrades (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security).

GovernanceHigh1/10

The economic model of this token is highly centralized, as a single `_BRIDGE` address holds exclusive privileges to mint and burn tokens. This design introduces a significant single point of failure; a compromise of the bridge contract would directly impact the token's supply integrity and value (7.4 Economic). While this is inherent to many cross-chain designs, it represents a high operational and governance risk (7.5 Governance, 7.8 Operations). The `_remoteToken` identifier's meaning is entirely dependent on the external bridge's logic (7.6 External).

UpgradesHigh1/10

The contract incorporates the `Initializable` pattern and correctly calls `_disableInitializers()` in its constructor, indicating an intent for use as an upgradeable implementation. However, the `_BRIDGE` address is declared as `immutable` and set in the constructor. This design choice means that if the contract is used behind a proxy, the bridge address cannot be changed through subsequent proxy upgrades, limiting the flexibility to update or replace the critical bridge component without deploying an entirely new token system (7.7 Upgrades).

Security Checklist

1/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership RenouncedFail
No Mint FunctionFail
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyFail

Proxy Upgrade Controls

Proxy TypeBeacon
ImplementationVerified source
Upgrades (30d)0 · stable

Holder Composition

99.9% in top 10
1.4% in wallets98.6% in contracts
Effective Concentration40.8%

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

$15.38M across 2 pairs
Uniswap v3cbBTCanalysed$14.20M92.4%PancakeswapSOL$1.17M7.6%

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 Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

2 addresses
Deployer
0xfd45…a430
Unlocked LP Held By
0x554c…d104

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

What Raised This Score

10 factors
  • Ownership NOT renounced (admin/mint authority retained)
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Proxy contract (upgradeable — admin can replace logic)
  • Complex proxy pattern (BEACON)
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (99.9% total → 40.8% effective; 1.4% in EOAs, 98.6% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 92% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 92% of DEX liquidity)
  • 1 High finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Medium 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

Related Audits

6 more on the record
Dolphin (POD)High Risk0xAgentEVE (EVE)High RiskWELLHigh RiskBittensor (TAO)High RiskVelvetHigh RiskLayerZero (ZRO)High Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Jito Staked SOL?

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

Get Detailed Audit