On-chain security analysis — is it a scam or legit?
This report is based on an audit of the contract at 0xb200000000000000000000503d889fdcbe48b801 on the Base network.
Read the full analysisEach 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
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
The 19 remaining pairs hold $2.2K between them and are not listed. The risk score reads depth across every pair.
The LP tokens of the analysed pool are not locked or burned, so whoever holds them can withdraw that liquidity.
0x575e…fe980xef7a…ae3b0x1690…1c150x5c5b…b0e20x89e8…805eNo privileged address appears among these holders: the unlocked liquidity sits with independent providers, not with the deployer.
The audit was requested for the contract at on the Base network, but no Solidity source code was provided. This prevents any form of static or dynamic code analysis, making it impossible to identify vulnerabilities, assess design patterns, or verify adherence to security best practices.
Provide the complete and verified Solidity source code for the contract. This includes all imported libraries and dependencies. Verification on a block explorer (e.g., Basescan) is highly recommended to ensure transparency and allow for public scrutiny.
Unresolved
This report is based on an audit of the contract at 0xb200000000000000000000503d889fdcbe48b801 on the Base network. No source code was provided for analysis, therefore a comprehensive security assessment could not be performed. The risk levels are set to 'Low' due to the absence of identifiable vulnerabilities without code.
No source code was provided for technical analysis. Therefore, an assessment of architectural patterns (7.1), code security (7.2), and access control mechanisms (7.3) could not be performed. Without code, no specific technical strengths or vulnerabilities can be identified.
No source code was provided, preventing an assessment of economic models (7.4) or governance structures (7.5). Without code, it is impossible to determine potential economic vulnerabilities or the robustness of governance mechanisms, thus no specific strengths or issues can be reported.
No source code was provided, making it impossible to determine if the contract utilizes an upgradeable proxy pattern (7.7) or to assess its upgrade safety. Operational aspects (7.8) and external dependencies (7.6) also could not be evaluated without code. Consequently, no specific upgrade-related strengths or weaknesses can be reported.
To enable a comprehensive security audit, it is crucial to provide the full source code for the deployed contract.
Without source code, no specific security recommendations can be made regarding potential vulnerabilities, best practices, or architectural improvements. Ensure all deployed code is verified on block explorers for transparency and public scrutiny.
Free for any token on the record. It links to this page and always shows the current score and the date it was checked.
Score changes are recorded as dated snapshots — history is append-only and cannot be edited.
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
