Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Meta Platforms Inc. Safe?

METACBase
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
Technical10/10Governance3/10Upgrades6/10Checks passed4 of 7Findings3 Info3
SummaryAI Copilot

This audit report is based on an unverified contract at address 0xb2000000000000000000008bc8786b856e61707c on the Base network.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
Exact factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (81.0% total → 44.6% effective; 20.2% in EOAs, 60.8% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 99% 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

Security Checklist

as of audit · Sep 44 of 7 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipUnknown
MintUnknown
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code
HoneypotNone found
Buy / sell tax0% / 0%

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
60.8%Contracts20.2%Wallets19.0%Everyone else
60.8%Contracts20.2%Wallets19.0%
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
81.0%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking60.8%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell20.2%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply19.0%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads44.6%
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$836.8K across 7 pairs
Show 1 more pair

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$830.3KShare of depth99.2%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder46.7%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0xba4b…ed360x4a4c…9cc70xe99b…318c

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

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Lack of Source Code Verification

The smart contract deployed at 0xb200…707c on the Base network is not verified on the block explorer. This means its Solidity source code is not publicly available or linked to the deployed bytecode. Users cannot independently review the contract's logic, functionality, or security properties. This significantly increases the risk of interacting with the contract, as its behavior is opaque and could potentially contain malicious code or critical vulnerabilities (7.2 Code Security).I-01

Issue

The smart contract deployed at on the Base network is not verified on the block explorer. This means its Solidity source code is not publicly available or linked to the deployed bytecode. Users cannot independently review the contract's logic, functionality, or security properties. This significantly increases the risk of interacting with the contract, as its behavior is opaque and could potentially contain malicious code or critical vulnerabilities (7.2 Code Security).

Fix

The contract deployer should immediately verify the source code on the Base block explorer. This provides transparency, allows for community review, and is a fundamental step in establishing trust for any public smart contract.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Undetermined Contract Functionality and Architecture

Without access to the source code, the specific functionality, purpose, and architectural design of the contract cannot be determined (7.1 Architecture). It is impossible to ascertain if it's a token, a DeFi protocol component, a governance contract, or something else entirely. This lack of clarity prevents any assessment of its intended use, potential attack vectors, or adherence to best practices for its presumed type.I-02

Issue

Without access to the source code, the specific functionality, purpose, and architectural design of the contract cannot be determined (7.1 Architecture). It is impossible to ascertain if it's a token, a DeFi protocol component, a governance contract, or something else entirely. This lack of clarity prevents any assessment of its intended use, potential attack vectors, or adherence to best practices for its presumed type.

Fix

Provide the source code and a clear description of the contract's intended functionality and architectural overview. This context is crucial for any security assessment and for users to understand the contract's role within a larger ecosystem.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Unassessable Access Control and Economic Risks

The absence of source code makes it impossible to evaluate the contract's access control mechanisms (7.3 Access Control) or its economic model (7.4 Economic). Critical questions regarding who can perform privileged operations, potential centralization risks, or how value is managed and distributed remain unanswered. This creates a high risk of unknown administrative backdoors, owner-controlled functions, or economic exploits that could lead to loss of funds or manipulation (7.5 Governance, 7.8 Operations).I-03

Issue

The absence of source code makes it impossible to evaluate the contract's access control mechanisms (7.3 Access Control) or its economic model (7.4 Economic). Critical questions regarding who can perform privileged operations, potential centralization risks, or how value is managed and distributed remain unanswered. This creates a high risk of unknown administrative backdoors, owner-controlled functions, or economic exploits that could lead to loss of funds or manipulation (7.5 Governance, 7.8 Operations).

Fix

Full transparency of the source code is required to assess and mitigate access control and economic risks. Implement robust, multi-signature based access control for critical functions and ensure economic parameters are transparent and, where appropriate, decentralized or governed by a community.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This audit report is based on an unverified contract at address 0xb2000000000000000000008bc8786b856e61707c on the Base network. No source code was provided for analysis. Therefore, a comprehensive security assessment of the contract's logic, architecture, and potential vulnerabilities could not be performed. The risk levels and findings are primarily informational, highlighting the inherent risks of interacting with unverified contracts.

Technical10/10Low risk

The technical architecture (7.1 Architecture) and code security (7.2 Code Security) of this contract cannot be assessed due to the absence of verifiable source code. While a well-designed contract would exhibit clear modularity and robust error handling, the current lack of transparency prevents any evaluation of these potential strengths. Consequently, critical vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows remain undetected, posing significant risks to users interacting with the opaque bytecode.

Governance3/10High risk

Without source code, the economic model (7.4 Economic) and governance structure (7.5 Governance) of the contract cannot be evaluated. A robust system would typically feature transparent tokenomics and decentralized decision-making, but these aspects are entirely unknown here. This lack of transparency poses a high risk regarding potential economic manipulation or centralized control by an unknown entity, making it impossible to assess external dependencies (7.6 External) or operational risks (7.8 Operations).

Upgrades6/10Medium risk

The provided information indicates the contract is not a proxy (is_proxy: false), suggesting it is not designed for upgradeability (7.7 Upgrades). This inherently limits the risk associated with upgrade mechanisms, as the contract's logic is immutable once deployed, which is a significant strength for stability. However, without source code, it's impossible to definitively confirm this immutability or rule out potential self-destruct or migration functions that could alter its state or functionality.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is strongly recommended that users exercise extreme caution when interacting with unverified smart contracts.

Before any interaction, ensure the contract's source code is publicly verified on block explorers and has undergone independent security audits. For developers, always verify your contract source code to provide transparency and build trust within the community. Consider implementing robust access control and emergency mechanisms, even for non-upgradeable contracts, to mitigate unforeseen operational risks.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
Type-
NetworkBase
Token age1y
Contract0xb200…707c
Badge for your website
Meta Platforms Inc. 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, 202628Low
  2. Aug 30, 202626Low

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

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
Olivia AI 2.0$OLIVIA2.0 · Base28LowVibestarterVIBES · Base28LowSyrup TokenSYRUP · Base28LowPORTALBase29LowBaselineBase29LowboarBase29Low

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Meta Platforms Inc.?

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