Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

Honeypot, rug-pull and ownership checks

Is Pepe a Scam?

PEPEEthereum
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 · 2 audits on record
SummaryAI Copilot

The audit of the PepeToken contract, an ERC20 token, reveals a robust implementation primarily leveraging battle-tested OpenZeppelin libraries.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.9%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 99.9%
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (38.7% total → 38.7% effective; 38.7% in EOAs, 0.0% in contracts — moderate)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 99.9% (exit-liquidity risk, pool = 92% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 99.9% (exit-liquidity risk, pool = 92% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • 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

Our automated scanner reviewed Pepe (PEPE) on Ethereum. 5 of 5 security checks passed — see the full breakdown below.

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
38.7%Wallets61.3%Everyone else
38.7%Wallets61.3%Everyone else
WalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
38.7%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell38.7%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply61.3%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads38.7%
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$30.36M across 11 pairs
LP tokensLocked

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

Analysed pool$27.93MShare of depth92.0%
LP Burned0.0%
LP Locked0.0%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder99.9%
Top-3 Unlocked99.9%
Unlocked LP held by
0x6982…19330x371d…37390x4c39…cd500xe151…1a310x4dc7…e11f0x0fbf…a4c30xb0e2…d3880xb481…d4ac0x5f8e…0b5f

Security Findings

1 Low2 Info
Low

No Emergency Mechanism or Upgradeability

Given the renounced ownership and non-proxy architecture, there is no mechanism to pause the contract, recover accidentally sent tokens (if applicable), or upgrade the contract to address future vulnerabilities or feature requirements. This lack of administrative flexibility is a direct consequence of the design choice for maximum decentralization.L-01

Issue

Given the renounced ownership and non-proxy architecture, there is no mechanism to pause the contract, recover accidentally sent tokens (if applicable), or upgrade the contract to address future vulnerabilities or feature requirements. This lack of administrative flexibility is a direct consequence of the design choice for maximum decentralization.

Fix

For future projects where administrative flexibility or upgradeability might be desired, consider implementing a multi-signature wallet for critical administrative functions or utilizing an upgradeable proxy pattern. For this specific contract, ensure users are fully aware of its immutable nature.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Ownership Renounced and Immutability

The contract's ownership has been renounced (the owner address is address(0)), rendering all onlyOwner functions inaccessible. This makes the contract highly immutable and decentralized regarding administrative control. While this prevents malicious owner actions, it also means no one can perform administrative tasks, fix potential bugs, or upgrade the contract in the future.I-01

Issue

The contract's ownership has been renounced (the owner address is address(0)), rendering all onlyOwner functions inaccessible. This makes the contract highly immutable and decentralized regarding administrative control. While this prevents malicious owner actions, it also means no one can perform administrative tasks, fix potential bugs, or upgrade the contract in the future.

Fix

This is a design choice that enhances decentralization. Ensure that all stakeholders understand the implications of this immutability, particularly the inability to modify contract logic or parameters post-deployment.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Reliance on OpenZeppelin Standards

The contract extensively uses battle-tested OpenZeppelin libraries (Context, Ownable, ERC20). This significantly reduces the likelihood of common vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, and basic access control flaws, as these libraries are widely audited and considered secure.I-02

Issue

The contract extensively uses battle-tested OpenZeppelin libraries (Context, Ownable, ERC20). This significantly reduces the likelihood of common vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, and basic access control flaws, as these libraries are widely audited and considered secure.

Fix

Continue to leverage well-audited and maintained libraries for core functionalities. Regularly check for updates and security advisories related to these dependencies.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

The audit of the PepeToken contract, an ERC20 token, reveals a robust implementation primarily leveraging battle-tested OpenZeppelin libraries. A key characteristic is the renounced ownership, which enhances decentralization and immutability. This design choice, while beneficial for trust, also means the contract lacks administrative flexibility for future changes or emergency responses.

Technical10/10Low risk

The technical architecture (7.1) is sound, relying on standard OpenZeppelin ERC20 and Ownable contracts. Code security (7.2) is high due to the use of well-audited libraries and Solidity 0.8.0, which includes SafeMath by default. Access control (7.3) is effectively decentralized as ownership has been renounced, preventing any single entity from controlling critical functions. No complex custom logic was identified that could introduce novel technical vulnerabilities.

Governance4/10Medium risk

The economic model (7.4) is a standard ERC20 token, with no apparent complex tokenomics in the provided code. Governance (7.5) is highly decentralized due to the renounced ownership, meaning no single entity can alter contract parameters or perform administrative actions. While this prevents malicious owner behavior, it also removes the ability to address unforeseen issues or upgrade the contract, representing a trade-off between decentralization and flexibility.

Upgrades10/10Low risk

The contract is not designed with upgradeability (7.7) in mind, as indicated by its non-proxy architecture. Furthermore, with ownership renounced, there is no administrative mechanism to implement an upgrade path even if it were technically feasible. This design choice ensures immutability but means the contract cannot be modified or improved post-deployment.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is recommended to ensure that all initial parameters, especially the total supply and distribution, were correctly configured prior to ownership renouncement, as these cannot be altered.

Users should be fully aware of the contract's immutable nature and the implications of no administrative control or upgrade path. For future projects, consider the trade-offs between full decentralization and the need for emergency administrative functions or upgradeability.

Contract & Record

2 audits on record
TypePepeToken
NetworkEthereum
Token age3y
Contract0x6982…1933
Deployer0xfbfe…8c9a
Badge for your website
Pepe 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. Jul 27, 202628Low
  2. Jul 26, 20260Low

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Pepe a scam?

Based on automated analysis, Pepe scores 0/100 (Low Risk) on our risk scale. No honeypot was detected, but always verify independently before investing.

Is Pepe safe to buy?

Our scanner flagged a risk score of 0/100. Ownership is renounced which reduces rug-pull risk. DYOR before purchasing any token.

Has Pepe been audited?

The contract is open-source and verified on-chain. Verification is not the same as a full security audit. Use Quantum Audit's free tool to run a deeper analysis of the contract code.

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Pepe?

Paste the contract address into our AI-powered scanner for a deeper real-time report — free, with every scoring factor shown.

Get Detailed Audit Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page