Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Unicity Labs a Scam?

UNYLAArbitrum
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 recordNew Launch · 23h old
Chart
High RiskHow is this score calculated?
How the score breaks downratings: 10 is safest
Technical6/10Governance1/10Upgrades6/10Checks passed4 of 7Findings4 Info4
SummaryAI Copilot

This audit report is based on the provided contract address 0x537c48bc8585bfd83e2c6ab47d9ddd5348ce0abb on Arbitrum.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN
  • Contract source not verified
  • Top-10 concentration > 70%
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0%
  • LP top3 unlocked holders = 100.0%
  • LP claimed locked but only 0.0% actually locked
  • Token age < 24h
Exact factors
  • Ownership status UNKNOWN (owner could not be resolved)
  • Mint capability UNKNOWN (implementation ABI unreadable)
  • Contract source NOT verified
  • Top-10 concentration > 70% (83.1% total → 81.5% effective; 80.4% in EOAs, 2.8% in contracts — extreme)
  • LP top1 unlocked holder = 100.0% (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 < 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

Early-stage analysis. This token has limited on-chain history (23h old). New tokens carry elevated risk — data may change rapidly. Always verify independently before investing.

Security Checklist

as of audit · Sep 44 of 7 checks passed
Contract verifiedNot verified
OwnershipUnknown
MintUnknown
Liquidity lockLocked
UpgradeabilityFixed code
HoneypotNone found
Buy / sell tax0% / 0%

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
2.8%80.4%Wallets16.9%Everyone else
80.4%Wallets16.9%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
83.1%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking2.8%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell80.4%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply16.9%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads81.5%
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$109.7K

The risk score reads depth across every pair.

LP tokensLocked

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

Analysed pool$109.7KShare of depth100.0%
Top-1 Unlocked Holder100.0%
Top-3 Unlocked100.0%
Unlocked LP held by
0xf858…7c6f0x1d2a…158c

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

Security Findings

4 Info
Info

Source Code Not Provided for Audit

The source code for the contract at 0x537c…0abb was not provided for this audit. This prevents any meaningful security analysis of the contract's internal logic, architecture, and potential vulnerabilities. Without source code, it is impossible to assess critical security aspects such as reentrancy, access control, integer overflows, or business logic flaws.I-01

Issue

The source code for the contract at was not provided for this audit. This prevents any meaningful security analysis of the contract's internal logic, architecture, and potential vulnerabilities. Without source code, it is impossible to assess critical security aspects such as reentrancy, access control, integer overflows, or business logic flaws.

Fix

Always provide the full, verified source code for all contracts intended for audit. Deploying contracts without publicly verified source code significantly increases risk for users and makes security assessments impossible. Ensure source code is published on block explorers (e.g., Etherscan, Arbiscan) and matches the deployed bytecode.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Importance of Comprehensive Testing

Even with well-written code, comprehensive testing is crucial for smart contract security. This includes unit tests, integration tests, and fuzz testing to cover various scenarios and edge cases. Without source code, the extent and quality of existing tests cannot be verified, leaving a gap in the overall security assurance.I-02

Issue

Even with well-written code, comprehensive testing is crucial for smart contract security. This includes unit tests, integration tests, and fuzz testing to cover various scenarios and edge cases. Without source code, the extent and quality of existing tests cannot be verified, leaving a gap in the overall security assurance.

Fix

Implement a robust testing suite covering all functions, access control, and potential attack vectors. Utilize tools like Foundry or Hardhat for unit and integration testing, and incorporate property-based testing (fuzzing) to explore unexpected inputs and states. Document test coverage and results.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Consideration for Formal Verification

Formal verification provides mathematical proof of a contract's adherence to a specified set of properties, offering the highest level of assurance for critical components. Without source code, it's impossible to determine if formal verification has been applied or to assess its scope.I-03

Issue

Formal verification provides mathematical proof of a contract's adherence to a specified set of properties, offering the highest level of assurance for critical components. Without source code, it's impossible to determine if formal verification has been applied or to assess its scope.

Fix

For critical smart contracts, consider engaging with formal verification experts to mathematically prove the absence of certain bugs and the adherence to key security properties. This adds an additional layer of security beyond traditional auditing and testing.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Review of External Dependencies and Operational Security

Smart contracts often interact with external contracts (7.6) or rely on off-chain operations (7.8). The security of these dependencies and operational procedures is paramount. Without source code, it's impossible to identify external calls, understand their implications, or assess the operational security practices of the project.I-04

Issue

Smart contracts often interact with external contracts (7.6) or rely on off-chain operations (7.8). The security of these dependencies and operational procedures is paramount. Without source code, it's impossible to identify external calls, understand their implications, or assess the operational security practices of the project.

Fix

Thoroughly document and audit all external dependencies, including oracles, other DeFi protocols, and administrative interfaces. Implement robust operational security procedures, including multi-signature wallets for critical actions, time-locks, and emergency pause mechanisms. Ensure clear incident response plans are in place.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

This audit report is based on the provided contract address 0x537c48bc8585bfd83e2c6ab47d9ddd5348ce0abb on Arbitrum. No source code was provided for analysis, therefore a comprehensive security assessment of the contract's logic, architecture, and potential vulnerabilities could not be performed. The risk levels assigned reflect the absence of identified issues due to lack of source, rather than an assurance of security. Users should exercise extreme caution when interacting with unverified contracts.

Technical6/10Medium risk

Due to the absence of source code, a detailed technical analysis of the contract's architecture (7.1), code security (7.2), and access control mechanisms (7.3) could not be conducted. Without the code, it is impossible to identify specific vulnerabilities such as reentrancy, integer overflows, or logic flaws. While the contract might be well-designed, the lack of transparency prevents any assessment of its robustness or adherence to security best practices.

Governance1/10High risk

An assessment of the contract's economic model (7.4) and governance structure (7.5) was not possible without access to the source code. Key aspects like tokenomics, fee structures, or administrative privileges cannot be evaluated. The potential for economic manipulation or centralized control remains unknown. While a well-designed contract could mitigate these risks, the current lack of information prevents any such determination.

Upgrades6/10Medium risk

Without the contract's source code, it is impossible to determine if it implements any upgradeability patterns (7.7) or to assess their safety. If the contract is upgradeable, the mechanism (e.g., UUPS, Transparent) and the associated access control for upgrades are critical security considerations. The lack of this information means potential risks related to upgradeability cannot be evaluated, leaving users unaware of possible future changes to the contract's logic.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is strongly recommended that all smart contracts undergo a thorough security audit with full access to the source code.

For users, interacting with contracts for which source code is not publicly verified and audited carries significant risk. Always prioritize transparency and ensure that the contract's logic has been independently reviewed by security professionals. Projects should always publish their source code and ideally have it formally verified on-chain.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
Type-
NetworkArbitrum
Token age23h
Contract0x537c…0abb
Deployer0xa1ae…d68b
Badge for your website
Unicity Labs 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, 202681High
  2. Sep 3, 202674High

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

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
Catena LabsCATE · Arbitrum80HighCubedCUBE · Arbitrum80HighVangridVANG · Arbitrum80HighVisionVSN · Arbitrum79HighVangridVAN · Arbitrum84HighMORArbitrum84High

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Unicity Labs?

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

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