Is Manyu Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Checklist

5/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership RenouncedPass

No Mint FunctionPass

Liquidity LockedPass

Not a ProxyPass

Audit History

1 audit on record

Jul 2415

Every audit run adds a dated snapshot — history is append-only and cannot be edited.

Audit Summary

This audit was conducted on an incomplete set of Solidity source code. Only the `SafeMath` library and `IERC20` interface were provided. The core contract logic, identified as 'Manyu' in prefill data, is missing. Therefore, a comprehensive security assessment of the protocol's functionality, economic model, and access control mechanisms could not be performed. The overall risk is assessed as Critical due to this significant lack of information, as the actual deployed contract's behavior and security posture remain largely unknown.

Final Recommendation: It is critical to provide the complete and verified source code for the deployed contract to enable a thorough security audit. Without the full source, no meaningful assessment of the contract's security posture can be made, and the project carries severe unquantifiable risks. Deploying contracts without publicly verified and audited source code introduces severe trust and security risks for users. It is strongly recommended to verify the full source code on block explorers and engage in a comprehensive audit to ensure the safety and integrity of the protocol.

Category Ratings

TechnicalMedium

5/10

The provided source code consists only of a `SafeMath` library and an `IERC20` interface. The `SafeMath` library is a standard, well-tested component, correctly implementing arithmetic operations with overflow/underflow checks or `unchecked` blocks where appropriate (7.2 Code Security). However, the

GovernanceMedium

6/10

Without the main contract's source code, it is impossible to assess any economic model, tokenomics, fee structures, or governance mechanisms (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance). This means potential risks related to inflation, deflation, rug pulls, or centralized control cannot be identified. Furthe

UpgradesLow

9/10

The provided code does not include any proxy or upgradeable contract patterns, nor does it reveal operational controls. Consequently, it is impossible to determine if the contract is upgradeable, what upgrade mechanisms are in place, or what risks might be associated with potential upgrades (7.7 Upg

LP Distribution

LP Burned100.0% · ≈ permanent lock

LP Locked100.0% · Null Address

What Raised This Score

2 factors

1 Critical finding(s) from audit
3 High 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 Findings

5 total

1 Critical 3 High 1 Info

C-01CriticalUnresolved

Missing Core Contract Source Code

The provided source code only includes the `SafeMath` library and `IERC20` interface. The main contract implementation (e.g., the 'Manyu' token contract) is entirely missing. This prevents any meaningful security analysis of the deployed contract's logic, state variables, functions, and interactions, making a comprehensive audit impossible.

Recommendation: Provide the complete and verified source code for the deployed contract (0x95af4af910c28e8ece4512bfe46f1f33687424ce) to allow for a comprehensive security audit. Without this, users cannot independently verify the contract's behavior or security, leading to a critical trust deficit.

H-01HighUnresolved

Inability to Assess Access Control Mechanisms

Without the full source code, it is impossible to evaluate the contract's access control mechanisms. This includes identifying privileged roles (e.g., owner, admin), verifying proper authorization checks (e.g., `onlyOwner`), and assessing potential centralization risks or single points of failure (7.3 Access Control). This lack of visibility poses a high risk of unauthorized actions or control.

Recommendation: Provide the complete source code to allow for a thorough review of all access control implementations and ensure they align with security best practices and the project's stated decentralization goals.

H-02HighUnresolved

Inability to Assess Economic Model and Tokenomics

The absence of the main contract's source code prevents any analysis of the token's economic model, including supply mechanisms, minting/burning functions, fee structures, staking rewards, or other tokenomics features (7.4 Economic). This leaves potential vulnerabilities like uncontrolled inflation, deflationary spirals, or rug pull vectors unidentifiable, posing a high risk to token holders.

Recommendation: Submit the full contract source code for review to enable a comprehensive assessment of the economic model, ensuring its stability, fairness, and resistance to manipulation.

H-03HighUnresolved

Inability to Assess Upgradeability and Operational Risks

The provided code does not reveal any upgradeability patterns or operational controls. Consequently, it's impossible to determine if the contract is upgradeable, how upgrades are managed, or if emergency functions (e.g., pause, emergency withdrawal) exist and are properly secured (7.7 Upgrades, 7.8 Operations). This introduces significant unknown risks regarding future changes and emergency response capabilities.

Recommendation: Provide the complete source code to allow for an assessment of any upgradeability patterns (e.g., proxy implementations) and operational controls, ensuring they are robust, transparent, and secure.

I-01InformationalUnresolved

Redundant SafeMath Usage in Solidity 0.8.x

The contract uses a `SafeMath` library. While `SafeMath` is crucial for preventing integer overflow/underflow in Solidity versions prior to 0.8.0, Solidity 0.8.0 and later versions (like 0.8.19 used here) include built-in overflow and underflow checks by default for all arithmetic operations. The `add`, `sub`, `mul`, `div`, `mod` functions in the provided `SafeMath` library that do not take an `errorMessage` parameter are effectively redundant as they simply wrap native operators that already revert on overflow/underflow. The `try*` functions and those with `errorMessage` parameters correctly use `unchecked` blocks and `require` statements, respectively.

Recommendation: Consider removing the `SafeMath` library for basic arithmetic operations in Solidity 0.8.x and above, relying on the native overflow/underflow checks. If custom error messages or explicit `unchecked` blocks are desired, ensure they are used judiciously where gas optimization is critical and safety is guaranteed by other means.

Is Manyu Safe? MANYU