Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is ResearchCoin Safe?

RSCBase
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
Chart
High RiskHow is this score calculated?
How the score breaks downratings: 10 is safest
Technical6/10Governance1/10Upgrades3/10Checks passed2 of 5Findings1 Medium · 2 Info3
SummaryAI Copilot

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract serves as a standard ERC20 token designed for cross-chain bridging within the Optimism ecosystem.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership not renounced
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Top-10 concentration > 50%
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 88.1%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 98.9%
  • 1 Medium finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Ownership NOT renounced (admin/mint authority retained)
  • Mintable supply — no cap found, dilution unbounded
  • Top-10 concentration > 50% (56.7% total → 54.5% effective; 53.1% in EOAs, 3.6% in contracts — heavy)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 88.1% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 56% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 98.9% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 56% of DEX liquidity)
  • 1 Medium 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 42 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRetained
MintMintable
Liquidity lockNot locked
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
3.6%53.1%Wallets43.3%Everyone else
3.6%53.1%Wallets43.3%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
56.7%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking3.6%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell53.1%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply43.3%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads54.5%
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$143.1K across 3 pairs

The risk score reads depth across every pair.

LP tokensNot locked

The LP tokens of the analysed pool are not locked or burned, so whoever holds them can withdraw that liquidity.

Analysed pool$80.4KShare of depth56.1%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder88.1%
Top-3 Unlocked98.9%
Unlocked LP held by
0xc37a…ab210xe75c…f0fe0xa181…9f1e0xa3fb…50d90x1a4a…4e5a0xafa7…e6550x6ae1…c017

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

Security Findings

1 Medium2 Info
Medium

Critical Dependency on Bridge Contract Security

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract's core functionality, specifically the ability to mint and burn tokens, is exclusively controlled by the BRIDGE contract. This makes the token's supply mechanism and overall economic integrity entirely dependent on the security and operational robustness of the external BRIDGE contract. A compromise or malfunction of the BRIDGE contract would directly lead to unauthorized token issuance or destruction, severely impacting the token's peg and trust (7.6 External).M-01

Issue

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract's core functionality, specifically the ability to mint and burn tokens, is exclusively controlled by the BRIDGE contract. This makes the token's supply mechanism and overall economic integrity entirely dependent on the security and operational robustness of the external BRIDGE contract. A compromise or malfunction of the BRIDGE contract would directly lead to unauthorized token issuance or destruction, severely impacting the token's peg and trust (7.6 External).

Fix

While this dependency is inherent to the bridged token design, it is crucial to ensure the BRIDGE contract itself is subject to the highest security standards, including comprehensive audits, formal verification, and robust operational controls. Implement continuous monitoring for the BRIDGE contract's activities.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Inclusion of Legacy Interface Functions

The contract includes several legacy getter functions (l1Token, l2Bridge, remoteToken, bridge) for backward compatibility with older interfaces. While these functions do not introduce direct vulnerabilities, they add to the contract's bytecode size and interface complexity, potentially making the contract harder to reason about for new integrations (7.1 Architecture).I-01

Issue

The contract includes several legacy getter functions (l1Token, l2Bridge, remoteToken, bridge) for backward compatibility with older interfaces. While these functions do not introduce direct vulnerabilities, they add to the contract's bytecode size and interface complexity, potentially making the contract harder to reason about for new integrations (7.1 Architecture).

Fix

Ensure that documentation clearly distinguishes between current and legacy functions. For future iterations, consider whether the maintenance of extensive legacy interfaces is necessary, or if a cleaner, more streamlined interface could be adopted.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Non-Upgradeable Contract Design

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract is designed as an immutable contract, with key parameters like REMOTE_TOKEN and BRIDGE set as immutable in the constructor. This means the contract cannot be upgraded or modified after deployment (7.7 Upgrades). While this simplifies the security model by removing upgrade-related risks, it implies that any discovered vulnerabilities or desired feature changes would necessitate a new deployment and a potentially complex migration process for token holders.I-02

Issue

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract is designed as an immutable contract, with key parameters like REMOTE_TOKEN and BRIDGE set as immutable in the constructor. This means the contract cannot be upgraded or modified after deployment (7.7 Upgrades). While this simplifies the security model by removing upgrade-related risks, it implies that any discovered vulnerabilities or desired feature changes would necessitate a new deployment and a potentially complex migration process for token holders.

Fix

Acknowledge the implications of a non-upgradeable design. Ensure that the initial deployment is exceptionally robust due to the inability to patch. Plan for potential future migration strategies in case a critical issue or necessary feature update arises.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract serves as a standard ERC20 token designed for cross-chain bridging within the Optimism ecosystem. It correctly implements restricted minting and burning capabilities via a designated bridge contract. The contract leverages well-audited OpenZeppelin libraries and immutable variables for core addresses. The primary risk identified is the inherent dependency on the security and integrity of the external bridge contract, which controls the token's supply.

Technical6/10Medium risk

The contract exhibits good technical quality, inheriting from OpenZeppelin's robust ERC20 implementation and utilizing Solidity 0.8.15 for built-in overflow/underflow protection (7.2 Code Security). Access control for critical minting and burning functions is correctly enforced via an onlyBridge modifier, ensuring only the designated bridge can modify token supply (7.3 Access Control). However, the contract's technical integrity is fundamentally tied to the security of the external BRIDGE contract, representing a significant external dependency risk (7.6 External).

Governance1/10High risk

The economic model of the OptimismMintableERC20 token is straightforward: it functions as a bridged representation of a token on another chain. Its economic security and peg stability are entirely dependent on the integrity and operational security of the BRIDGE contract (7.4 Economic). Any governance or operational failures within the bridge mechanism could directly impact the value and trust in this token (7.5 Governance, 7.8 Operations).

Upgrades3/10High risk

The OptimismMintableERC20 contract is designed as an immutable, non-upgradeable contract, with key addresses set in the constructor (7.7 Upgrades). This design choice simplifies its security model by eliminating risks associated with upgrade mechanisms (e.g., proxy vulnerabilities, storage collisions). However, it implies that any future bug fixes or feature enhancements would require a complete redeployment and migration of assets, which can be a complex and costly process.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

Ensure the BRIDGE contract, which has exclusive control over minting and burning, undergoes rigorous security audits and maintains robust operational security.

Given the non-upgradeable nature of this token, any identified vulnerabilities in the future would necessitate a new deployment and asset migration, emphasizing the importance of thorough initial review. Consider documenting the implications of the non-upgradeable design for long-term maintenance and potential future changes.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeToken
NetworkBase
Token age1y
Contract0xfbb7…f7e1
Deployer0xafdb…e860
Badge for your website
ResearchCoin 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, 202666High
  2. Jul 23, 202655Medium
  3. Jul 23, 202641Medium

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the RSC contract address?

The ResearchCoin (RSC) contract on Base is 0xfbb75a59193a3525a8825bebe7d4b56899e2f7e1. Compare it with the address the project itself publishes before trading: other contracts can carry the same name and ticker.

Is ResearchCoin a scam?

Quantum Audit's risk score for ResearchCoin is 66/100 (High risk) as of Sep 4, 2026, computed by a deterministic function from on-chain facts — Contract verified: Verified; Ownership: Retained; Mint: Mintable; Liquidity lock: Not locked; Upgradeability: Fixed code. A score is a dated snapshot of those facts, not a guarantee; each one is listed on this page.

Is RSC liquidity locked?

Liquidity lock: Not locked (as of Sep 4, 2026). Total DEX liquidity: $143.1K.

Who holds RSC?

As of Sep 4, 2026, the 10 largest holders own 56.7% of the supply. The Holders section on this page shows who they are by holder type.

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
Fren PetBase66HighVoice of the Gods by VirtualsADM · Base66HighCoinbase Wrapped ADACBADA · Base66Highether.fi governance tokenETHFI · Base65HighCluster ProtocolCP · Base65HighWorldMobileTokenWMTX · Base65High

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of ResearchCoin?

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