Quantum Audit Logo

Is Ornn Exchange a Scam?

Early-stage security check — honeypot & rug-pull analysis

Ornn Exchange ORNN
0x727c…da37
Arbitrum Not verifiedLast checked 3d ago 1 audit on record New Launch · 1d old
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → Critical Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

This audit report is based on the analysis of a contract deployed at 0x727c6fbfd4c6a1aaf256b863312d61a2f6c4da37 on the Arbitrum network. No source code was provided or verified for this contract, which severely limits the scope and depth of the security assessment. Therefore, no specific vulnerabilities could be identified, and the risk assessment is largely theoretical based on general best practices. Users should exercise extreme caution.

3 Informational
! Early-stage analysis. This token has limited on-chain history (1d old). New tokens carry elevated risk — data may change rapidly. Always verify independently before investing.
Volume 24h
$142.4K
Liquidity
$95.0K
Price
$0.1293
Token Age
1d
Top 10 Holders
94.1%

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Lack of Verified Source Code

I-01The source code for the contract at 0x727c…da37 is not publicly verified on the Arbitrum block explorer. This prevents a thorough security audit and makes it impossible to ascertain the contract's intended functionality, security mechanisms, and potential vulnerabilities.
IssueThe source code for the contract at is not publicly verified on the Arbitrum block explorer. This prevents a thorough security audit and makes it impossible to ascertain the contract's intended functionality, security mechanisms, and potential vulnerabilities.
FixThe contract deployer should verify the source code on the block explorer. This enhances transparency, allows for community review, and enables security professionals to conduct proper assessments.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Undetermined Contract Functionality and Purpose

I-02Without verified source code, the specific functionality, purpose, and business logic of the contract cannot be determined. This lack of clarity makes it impossible to assess its intended behavior, potential interactions with other protocols, or adherence to any specific ERC standards (e.g., ERC-20, ERC-721).
IssueWithout verified source code, the specific functionality, purpose, and business logic of the contract cannot be determined. This lack of clarity makes it impossible to assess its intended behavior, potential interactions with other protocols, or adherence to any specific ERC standards (e.g., ERC-20, ERC-721).
FixProvide comprehensive documentation detailing the contract's purpose, functionality, and any associated protocol architecture. This information, coupled with verified source code, is crucial for user understanding and security analysis.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Absence of Public Documentation and Audit History

I-03There is no readily available public documentation or record of prior security audits for this contract. This absence limits the ability to understand the project's security posture, design considerations, and any known issues or resolutions.
IssueThere is no readily available public documentation or record of prior security audits for this contract. This absence limits the ability to understand the project's security posture, design considerations, and any known issues or resolutions.
FixPublish detailed documentation, including architectural overviews, functional specifications, and any past audit reports. This transparency builds trust and provides essential context for users and security researchers.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalMedium6/10

Due to the absence of verified source code, a comprehensive technical security analysis (7.1 Architecture, 7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control) could not be performed. The bytecode alone does not allow for a detailed assessment of common vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows. Without source, it is impossible to identify specific strengths or weaknesses in the contract's implementation or to provide concrete examples.

GovernanceHigh1/10

The economic and governance aspects (7.4 Economic, 7.5 Governance) of the contract cannot be assessed without access to its source code and associated documentation. It is impossible to determine if the contract implements any specific economic models, fee structures, or governance mechanisms. Therefore, no specific risks related to oracle manipulation or economic exploits can be identified, nor can any strengths be highlighted.

UpgradesMedium6/10

Without source code, it is impossible to determine if the contract implements any upgradeability patterns (7.7 Upgrades) or if it is part of a larger proxy architecture. This lack of information prevents an assessment of upgrade safety or potential risks associated with future changes. Similarly, operational aspects (7.8 Operations) cannot be evaluated, making it impossible to identify specific issues or robust operational controls.

Security Checklist

2/5 checks passed
Contract VerifiedFail
Ownership Renounced?
No Mint Function?
Liquidity LockedPass
Not a ProxyPass
HoneypotNoneBuy Tax0.0%Sell Tax0.0%

Holder Composition

94.1% in top 10
91.6% in wallets2.5% in contracts
Effective Concentration92.6%

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

$95.0K

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 Holder96.9%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

3 addresses
Deployer
0x3bac…665e
Unlocked LP Held By
0xb029…cb610x1d2a…158c

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

What Raised This Score

8 factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Contract source NOT verified
  • Top-10 concentration > 70% (94.1% total → 92.6% effective; 91.6% in EOAs, 2.5% in contracts — extreme)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 96.9% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk)
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • Token age < 7 days (early, volatile)

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

Related Audits

6 more on the record
Vision (VSN)Critical RiskCatena Labs (CATE)Critical RiskUnicity Labs (UNYLA)Critical RiskCoinbase Wrapped BTC (CBBTC)Critical RiskChipCritical RiskVangrid (VAN)Critical Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Ornn Exchange?

This token is brand new. Run a deeper AI-powered analysis of the contract code — free and instant.

Get Detailed Audit