Quantum Audit Logo

Is LAB Safe?

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

Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page →

LAB LAB
0x7ec4…593a
BNB Chain Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Medium Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

The LabToken contract implements a standard ERC20 token with burnable functionality, leveraging battle-tested OpenZeppelin libraries. The contract's simplicity and reliance on well-audited components contribute to a low technical risk profile. The primary consideration is the centralized initial token distribution, where the entire supply is minted to the deployer, which introduces a governance and economic risk depending on the project's distribution strategy.

1 Low3 Informational
Volume 24h
$316.9K
Liquidity
$140.5K
Price
$0.07207
Token Age
1y
Top 10 Holders
63.7%

Security Findings

1 Low3 Info
Low

Centralized Initial Token Distribution

L-01The `LabToken` contract's constructor mints the entire initial supply of 1,000,000,000 tokens to the `msg.sender` (the contract deployer). This design choice results in 100% of the token supply being held by a single address immediately after deployment. While common, this centralization can pose a governance and economic risk if the deployer's address is compromised or if the distribution strategy is not transparently executed.
IssueThe `LabToken` contract's constructor mints the entire initial supply of 1,000,000,000 tokens to the `msg.sender` (the contract deployer). This design choice results in 100% of the token supply being held by a single address immediately after deployment. While common, this centralization can pose a governance and economic risk if the deployer's address is compromised or if the distribution strategy is not transparently executed.
FixImplement a clear and transparent plan for the distribution of the initially minted tokens. Consider using a multi-signature wallet to manage the deployer's address holding the tokens, or distribute tokens to multiple addresses/contracts (e.g., vesting contracts, liquidity pools) immediately after deployment to reduce single-point-of-failure risk and enhance decentralization.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Reliance on Standard OpenZeppelin Libraries

I-01The `LabToken` contract extensively utilizes well-audited and battle-tested OpenZeppelin contracts (ERC20, ERC20Burnable, Context, etc.). This approach significantly enhances the security posture of the contract by relying on code that has undergone extensive peer review and real-world usage, minimizing the risk of common vulnerabilities.
IssueThe `LabToken` contract extensively utilizes well-audited and battle-tested OpenZeppelin contracts (ERC20, ERC20Burnable, Context, etc.). This approach significantly enhances the security posture of the contract by relying on code that has undergone extensive peer review and real-world usage, minimizing the risk of common vulnerabilities.
FixNo specific recommendation. Continue to monitor OpenZeppelin updates and security advisories for any potential issues in the underlying libraries.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Immutability of Contract Logic

I-02The `LabToken` contract is implemented as a standard, non-upgradeable contract. Once deployed, its logic cannot be modified. This immutability ensures that the contract's behavior is fixed and predictable, eliminating risks associated with upgrade mechanisms (e.g., proxy implementation bugs, insecure upgrade paths).
IssueThe `LabToken` contract is implemented as a standard, non-upgradeable contract. Once deployed, its logic cannot be modified. This immutability ensures that the contract's behavior is fixed and predictable, eliminating risks associated with upgrade mechanisms (e.g., proxy implementation bugs, insecure upgrade paths).
FixNo specific recommendation. Acknowledge that any future changes or bug fixes would require deploying a new contract and migrating token holders, which can be a complex process.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Absence of Custom Business Logic

I-03The `LabToken` contract does not introduce any custom business logic beyond the standard ERC20 and ERC20Burnable functionalities provided by OpenZeppelin. This simplicity reduces the overall attack surface and the likelihood of introducing new, project-specific vulnerabilities, contributing to a higher level of security.
IssueThe `LabToken` contract does not introduce any custom business logic beyond the standard ERC20 and ERC20Burnable functionalities provided by OpenZeppelin. This simplicity reduces the overall attack surface and the likelihood of introducing new, project-specific vulnerabilities, contributing to a higher level of security.
FixNo specific recommendation. Maintain this minimalist approach if the project's requirements do not necessitate additional complex features, as it inherently reduces security risks.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

The technical architecture (7.1 Architecture) of LabToken is robust, inheriting directly from OpenZeppelin's ERC20 and ERC20Burnable contracts. This significantly reduces the attack surface and leverages extensively audited code for core token functionalities. Code security (7.2 Code Security) is high, with standard implementations for transfers, approvals, and burning, including proper handling of integer overflows/underflows via OpenZeppelin's `unchecked` blocks and `require` statements. Access control (7.3 Access Control) is limited to standard ERC20 roles (owner, spender) without custom permissions, which simplifies the design but means no additional administrative controls.

GovernanceHigh2/10

The economic model (7.4 Economic) involves an initial mint of 1,000,000,000 tokens to the contract deployer (msg.sender) in the constructor. This design choice centralizes 100% of the token supply with a single address, presenting a significant governance risk (7.5 Governance) if not managed transparently. While this is a common pattern for initial token distribution, it places full control over the token's immediate supply and potential market impact in the hands of the deployer. There are no external dependencies (7.6 External) that could introduce economic or governance risks.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The LabToken contract is not designed with upgradeability features (7.7 Upgrades), meaning its logic is immutable once deployed. This eliminates risks associated with upgrade mechanisms, such as proxy implementation bugs or insecure upgrade paths. However, it also means that any future bug fixes or feature enhancements would require a complete redeployment and migration of token holders. Operations (7.8 Operations) are straightforward, as there are no complex administrative functions beyond standard ERC20 operations.

Security Checklist

3/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedPass
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint FunctionPass
Liquidity LockedFail
Not a ProxyPass

Holder Composition

63.7% in top 10
18.5% in wallets45.2% in contracts
Effective Concentration36.6%

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

$192.0K across 8 pairs
Pancakeswap v3USDTanalysed$140.5K73.2%UniswapUSDT$48.4K25.2%UniswapUSDT$2.5K1.3%Pancakeswap v3USDT$3870.2%TopazWBNB$2370.1%Pancakeswap v3WBNB$240.0%
Show 2 more pairsShow less
Pancakeswap v2USDT$00.0%Uniswap v2USDT$00.0%

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 Holder97.3%
Top-3 Unlocked99.9%

Key Addresses

11 addresses
Deployer
0x76c2…592d
Unlocked LP Held By
0xf949…02980x9d56…e0ee0xbc7a…3e710xce13…f41c0xee9b…81b00x8e0a…76c10x9fd1…575b0xbefc…550e0x478b…cdc50xae8a…d7bd

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 > 30% (63.7% total → 36.6% effective; 18.5% in EOAs, 45.2% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 97.3% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 73% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 99.9% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 73% 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

Related Audits

6 more on the record
Koma Inu (KOMA)Medium RiskFLORKMedium RiskThe Final Form Bull (CZ)Medium RiskBaby Asteroid (BABYASTEROID)Medium RiskDecentrawood (DEOD)Medium RiskTest (TST)Medium Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of LAB?

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

Get Detailed Audit