Quantum Audit Logo

Is Rova Protocol a Scam?

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

Is this your token? Publish your own audit on this page →

Rova Protocol ROVA
0x64e3…ffff
Ethereum
Not verifiedThis 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 7d ago 1 audit on record New Launch · 14h old
DexScreener ↗
How is this score calculated? → High Risk
Executive SummaryAI Copilot

This audit report is based on an analysis of the provided contract address. No source code was provided for the contract at 0x64e3f8f72a5db5fd327979f545066583e3a9ffff, and it is not verified on Etherscan. Consequently, a comprehensive security audit of the contract's logic, vulnerabilities, and adherence to best practices could not be performed. The findings below reflect the implications of this lack of transparency.

3 Informational
! Early-stage analysis. This token has limited on-chain history (14h old). New tokens carry elevated risk — data may change rapidly. Always verify independently before investing.
Volume 24h
$127.8K
Liquidity
$45.5K
Price
$0.0000934
Token Age
14h
Top 10 Holders
54.1%

Security Findings

3 Info
Info

Unverified Contract Source Code

I-01The contract at address 0x64e3…ffff does not have its source code publicly verified on the Ethereum blockchain explorer (Etherscan). This lack of transparency prevents any third-party or user from independently reviewing the contract's logic, identifying potential vulnerabilities, or understanding its intended behavior. This directly impacts 7.2 Code Security and 7.1 Architecture.
IssueThe contract at address does not have its source code publicly verified on the Ethereum blockchain explorer (Etherscan). This lack of transparency prevents any third-party or user from independently reviewing the contract's logic, identifying potential vulnerabilities, or understanding its intended behavior. This directly impacts 7.2 Code Security and 7.1 Architecture.
FixIt is strongly recommended that the contract deployer verify the source code on Etherscan. This practice is fundamental for transparency, community trust, and enabling security assessments. Without verification, users are forced to trust the deployer implicitly regarding the contract's functionality and safety.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Inability to Perform Comprehensive Security Audit

I-02Due to the absence of verifiable source code, a comprehensive security audit covering common vulnerability patterns (e.g., reentrancy, access control flaws, integer overflows, economic exploits) could not be performed. This means that potential critical, high, or medium severity vulnerabilities within the contract's logic remain undetected and unassessed. This impacts all technical and economic security aspects (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic).
IssueDue to the absence of verifiable source code, a comprehensive security audit covering common vulnerability patterns (e.g., reentrancy, access control flaws, integer overflows, economic exploits) could not be performed. This means that potential critical, high, or medium severity vulnerabilities within the contract's logic remain undetected and unassessed. This impacts all technical and economic security aspects (7.2 Code Security, 7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic).
FixTo enable a full security assessment, the source code must be provided and verified. Future audits would require access to the complete and accurate Solidity code to identify and mitigate any underlying security risks effectively.
StatusUnresolved
Info

Reliance on External Trust for Unverified Contracts

I-03Users interacting with an unverified contract must place complete trust in the contract deployer and the assumed functionality, as there is no on-chain proof of the code's behavior. This introduces significant counterparty risk, as malicious or buggy code could be deployed without public scrutiny, potentially leading to loss of funds or unexpected behavior. This affects 7.6 External and 7.8 Operations.
IssueUsers interacting with an unverified contract must place complete trust in the contract deployer and the assumed functionality, as there is no on-chain proof of the code's behavior. This introduces significant counterparty risk, as malicious or buggy code could be deployed without public scrutiny, potentially leading to loss of funds or unexpected behavior. This affects 7.6 External and 7.8 Operations.
FixUsers should be educated on the risks associated with interacting with unverified contracts. Protocols should prioritize transparency and verifiability to build and maintain user trust. For any critical infrastructure, source code verification and independent security audits are non-negotiable requirements.
StatusUnresolved

Category Ratings

TechnicalMedium6/10

Due to the absence of verifiable source code (7.2 Code Security), a technical assessment of the contract's implementation, potential vulnerabilities like reentrancy or integer overflows, and adherence to secure coding practices could not be conducted. Without source code, it is impossible to evaluate the contract's architecture (7.1 Architecture) or its internal mechanisms.

GovernanceHigh3/10

Without access to the contract's source code, it is impossible to assess its economic model (7.4 Economic) or governance mechanisms (7.5 Governance). The impact of potential external interactions (7.6 External) or specific access control roles (7.3 Access Control) cannot be determined. The reported 'ownership_renounced: true' is a positive indicator, but its implications cannot be fully verified without code.

UpgradesLow8/10

The contract's upgradeability status (7.7 Upgrades) cannot be determined without source code. It is unknown if it implements a proxy pattern (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) or if its logic can be modified post-deployment. This lack of information prevents an assessment of upgrade safety or potential operational risks (7.8 Operations) related to future changes.

Security Checklist

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

Holder Composition

54.1% in top 10
17.3% in wallets36.8% in contracts
Effective Concentration32.0%

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

$47.6K across 4 pairs
Uniswap v4ETHanalysed$45.5K95.5%Uniswap v4USDC$1.1K2.2%Uniswap v4USDC$7681.6%Uniswap v4ETH$2830.6%

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 Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%

Key Addresses

2 addresses
Deployer
0x5f61…97ac
Unlocked LP Held By
0x357f…ccee

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

What Raised This Score

8 factors
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Contract source NOT verified
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (54.1% total → 32.0% effective; 17.3% in EOAs, 36.8% in contracts — moderate)
  • Liquidity not locked, but no owner/deployer address holds LP — market-depth risk, not rug risk
  • Liquidity < $50k ($47,590 across 4 pairs — thin market)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 96% of DEX liquidity)
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0% (independent LP — depth risk, pool = 96% of DEX liquidity)
  • Token age < 24h (brand new — bot activity, unproven)

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
Tether Gold (XAUT)High RiskMatrix (MTX)High RiskAnimecoin (ANIME)High RiskCentrifuge (CFG)High RiskChainflip (FLIP)High RiskAPI3High Risk

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Rova Protocol?

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

Get Detailed Audit