Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is LAB Safe?

BNB Chain
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
Low RiskHow is this score calculated?
How the score breaks downratings: 10 is safest
Technical10/10Governance2/10Upgrades6/10Checks passed3 of 5Findings1 Low · 3 Info4
SummaryAI Copilot

The LabToken contract implements a standard ERC20 token with burnable functionality, leveraging battle-tested OpenZeppelin libraries.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 97.3%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 99.9%
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact 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

Security Checklist

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

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
45.2%Contracts18.5%Wallets36.3%Everyone else
45.2%Contracts18.5%Wallets36.3%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
63.7%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking45.2%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell18.5%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply36.3%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads36.6%
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$192.0K across 8 pairs
Show 2 more 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$140.5KShare of depth73.2%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder97.3%
Top-3 Unlocked99.9%
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.

Security Findings

1 Low3 Info
Low

Centralized Initial Token Distribution

The 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.L-01

Issue

The 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.

Fix

Implement 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.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Reliance on Standard OpenZeppelin Libraries

The 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.I-01

Issue

The 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.

Fix

No specific recommendation. Continue to monitor OpenZeppelin updates and security advisories for any potential issues in the underlying libraries.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Immutability of Contract Logic

The 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).I-02

Issue

The 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).

Fix

No 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.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Absence of Custom Business Logic

The 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.I-03

Issue

The 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.

Fix

No specific recommendation. Maintain this minimalist approach if the project's requirements do not necessitate additional complex features, as it inherently reduces security risks.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

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.

Technical10/10Low risk

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.

Governance2/10High risk

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.

Upgrades6/10Medium risk

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.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is recommended to clearly communicate the token distribution strategy to the community, especially regarding the initial centralized mint.

Consider implementing a multi-signature wallet for the deployer address if the tokens are intended for long-term project funding or controlled distribution, to mitigate single-point-of-failure risks. For future projects, evaluate whether a more decentralized initial distribution or a phased release mechanism aligns better with project goals and community expectations.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeLabToken
NetworkBNB Chain
Token age1y
Contract0x7ec4…593a
Deployer0x76c2…592d
Badge for your website
LAB 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. Sep 4, 202626Low
  2. Aug 11, 202625Low

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

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
Koma InuKOMA · BNB Chain26LowFLORKBNB Chain26LowZhao Cai Mao招财猫 · BNB Chain26LowYe HiYEHI · BNB Chain26LowThe Final Form BullCZ · BNB Chain25LowBaby AsteroidBABYASTEROID · BNB Chain27Low

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