Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is mubarak Safe?

MUBARAKBNB 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
SummaryAI Copilot

This audit covers a custom ERC20 token contract with added transfer control mechanisms.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Top-10 concentration > 70%
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 62.2%
  • 1 High finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Medium finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Top-10 concentration > 70% (86.6% total → 84.2% effective; 82.6% in EOAs, 3.9% in contracts — extreme)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 62.2% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 100% of DEX liquidity)
  • 1 High finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Medium finding(s) from audit
  • 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 45 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRenounced
MintNo mint
Liquidity lockLocked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
3.9%82.6%Wallets13.4%Everyone else
3.9%82.6%Wallets13.4%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
86.6%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking3.9%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell82.6%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply13.4%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads84.2%
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$2.36M across 13 pairs
LP tokensLocked

The LP tokens of the analysed pool are locked or burned.

Analysed pool$2.35MShare of depth99.8%
LP Locked33.0% · GoPlus SafeToken Locker
Top-1 Unlocked Holder62.2%
Top-3 Unlocked66.8%
Unlocked LP held by
0x5036…6a200xa532…943f0x2a0b…23f10xe9a4…062b0x09c1…1c9d0xf58b…88d30x355c…fe6c0x6440…5f570xaab0…51d0

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

Security Findings

1 High1 Medium1 Low
High

Irreversible Transfer Mode Change

The setMode function contains a condition if (_mode != MODE_NORMAL) { _mode = v; }. This logic prevents the owner from changing the transfer mode once it has been set to MODE_NORMAL. If the owner ever sets the token to MODE_NORMAL, they permanently lose the ability to re-enable MODE_TRANSFER_RESTRICTED or MODE_TRANSFER_CONTROLLED, even in emergency situations. This represents an irreversible loss of a critical control mechanism (7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic).H-01

Issue

The setMode function contains a condition if (_mode != MODE_NORMAL) { _mode = v; }. This logic prevents the owner from changing the transfer mode once it has been set to MODE_NORMAL. If the owner ever sets the token to MODE_NORMAL, they permanently lose the ability to re-enable MODE_TRANSFER_RESTRICTED or MODE_TRANSFER_CONTROLLED, even in emergency situations. This represents an irreversible loss of a critical control mechanism (7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic).

Fix

Remove the if (_mode != MODE_NORMAL) condition from the setMode function if the intention is for the owner to always retain full control over the transfer mode. Alternatively, if the irreversible transition is intended, ensure this design choice is clearly documented and understood by all stakeholders, acknowledging the permanent loss of control.

Status

Unresolved

Medium

Centralized Control over Token Transfers

The owner() address has complete control over the token's transferability through the setMode function and the _beforeTokenTransfer hook. The owner can pause all transfers (MODE_TRANSFER_RESTRICTED) or restrict them to only involve the owner (MODE_TRANSFER_CONTROLLED). This introduces a single point of failure, as a compromised owner key could lead to censorship or manipulation of token transfers (7.3 Access Control, 7.5 Governance).M-01

Issue

The owner() address has complete control over the token's transferability through the setMode function and the _beforeTokenTransfer hook. The owner can pause all transfers (MODE_TRANSFER_RESTRICTED) or restrict them to only involve the owner (MODE_TRANSFER_CONTROLLED). This introduces a single point of failure, as a compromised owner key could lead to censorship or manipulation of token transfers (7.3 Access Control, 7.5 Governance).

Fix

Consider implementing a multi-signature wallet for the owner role or introducing a time-lock mechanism for critical functions like setMode. This would distribute control and provide a delay for users to react to potentially malicious actions, enhancing security and decentralization.

Status

Unresolved

Low

Initial Restricted Transfer State

Upon deployment, the token's _mode is initialized to MODE_TRANSFER_RESTRICTED. This means that immediately after deployment, no transfers of the token are possible until the owner explicitly calls setMode to change it to MODE_NORMAL or MODE_TRANSFER_CONTROLLED. This requires an immediate operational step from the owner for the token to become functional for general use (7.8 Operations).L-01

Issue

Upon deployment, the token's _mode is initialized to MODE_TRANSFER_RESTRICTED. This means that immediately after deployment, no transfers of the token are possible until the owner explicitly calls setMode to change it to MODE_NORMAL or MODE_TRANSFER_CONTROLLED. This requires an immediate operational step from the owner for the token to become functional for general use (7.8 Operations).

Fix

Ensure that the operational team is aware of this initial state and has a clear plan for calling setMode to the desired initial operational mode shortly after deployment. Document this step in the deployment checklist.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This audit covers a custom ERC20 token contract with added transfer control mechanisms. The contract implements standard ERC20 functionalities and introduces a _mode variable to restrict transfers. Key findings include an irreversible state change in the transfer mode mechanism and significant centralization of control over token transfers by the owner.

Technical9/10Low risk

The contract utilizes standard OpenZeppelin patterns for ERC20 and Ownable functionalities, demonstrating a solid foundation (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security). The use of unchecked blocks is appropriately guarded by require statements, mitigating common integer overflow/underflow risks. However, the custom _beforeTokenTransfer logic introduces specific access control and state management complexities that require careful attention (7.3 Access Control).

Governance4/10Medium risk

The token's economic model is heavily reliant on the owner's control over transferability (7.4 Economic). The setMode function allows the owner to permanently disable transfer restrictions by setting the mode to MODE_NORMAL, without the ability to re-enable them. This introduces a significant, irreversible change in the token's core utility. The owner also has centralized control over all transfers, which could lead to censorship or manipulation (7.5 Governance).

Upgrades10/10Low risk

The contract is not designed with upgradeability in mind (7.7 Upgrades). It is a standard implementation contract without proxy patterns. Therefore, any identified issues or desired feature changes would require a new deployment and migration, which is a common characteristic for non-upgradeable tokens.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is strongly recommended to review the design of the setMode function, specifically the irreversible transition to MODE_NORMAL.

If the intention is to retain the ability to restrict transfers in the future, this logic must be revised. Additionally, consider the implications of centralized control over token transfers and whether a multi-signature wallet or a time-locked governance mechanism could be introduced for critical functions like setMode to enhance security and decentralization.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeToken
NetworkBNB Chain
Token age1y
Contract0x5c85…46f6
Deployer0xeabf…642a
Badge for your website
mubarak 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, 202631Low
  2. Aug 11, 202625Low

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

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of mubarak?

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