Is O1 Doll (O1DOLL) Safe? Smart Contract Security Analysis

Security Findings

1 Info

Info

No issues identified in the reviewed source

I-01The verified source code was reviewed and no issue rising to Informational severity or above was identified. This is a statement about the code that was read, not a guarantee: the review covers the published source only. Fact-layer checks (holder concentration) were applied separately and feed the risk score.

IssueThe verified source code was reviewed and no issue rising to Informational severity or above was identified. This is a statement about the code that was read, not a guarantee: the review covers the published source only. Fact-layer checks (holder concentration) were applied separately and feed the risk score.

FixRe-check after any contract upgrade or ownership change, both of which can alter behaviour without changing this page.

StatusAcknowledged

Category Ratings

TechnicalLow10/10

Due to the absence of source code, a technical assessment of the contract's architecture (7.1), code security (7.2), and access control mechanisms (7.3) could not be performed. Without visibility into the implementation, it is impossible to identify common vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, or improper authorization checks. Therefore, no strengths or issues can be reported in this section.

GovernanceHigh3/10

An evaluation of the contract's economic model (7.4), governance structure (7.5), and interactions with external protocols (7.6) is not possible without the underlying source code. Key aspects like tokenomics, fee structures, oracle dependencies, or administrative privileges cannot be analyzed. Consequently, no specific economic or governance risks can be identified.

UpgradesMedium6/10

The upgradeability (7.7) and operational aspects (7.8) of the contract cannot be determined without access to its source code. It is unknown if the contract utilizes a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) or if it is immutable. Therefore, potential risks related to upgrade paths, administrative multi-sigs, or emergency pause functions cannot be assessed.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed

Contract VerifiedPass

Ownership Renounced?

No Mint Function?

Liquidity LockedFail

Not a ProxyPass

HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

21.9% in top 10

4.6% in wallets17.3% in contracts

Effective Concentration11.5%

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

$86.8K across 4 pairs

Uniswap v4ETHanalysed$86.6K Uniswap v4ETH$110 Uniswap v4USDC$23 Uniswap v4USDC$4

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 Holder82.2%

Top-3 Unlocked96.0%

Key Addresses

4 addresses

Unlocked LP Held By

0x02f4…30b50x85f9…ea620x6393…af8f0xbc78…f26d

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)
Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
LP top1 unlocked holder = 82.2% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 100% of DEX liquidity)
LP top3 unlocked holders = 96.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 100% of DEX liquidity)
Token age < 30 days (still settling)

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

Is O1 Doll Safe?