Quantum Audit Logo
Launch App

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

Is Uniswap Safe?

UNIEthereum
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
Medium RiskHow is this score calculated?
How the score breaks downratings: 10 is safest
Technical7/10Governance2/10Upgrades5/10Checks passed2 of 5Findings1 High · 1 Low · 1 Info3
SummaryAI Copilot

The Uni contract implements an ERC-20 token with governance delegation and a controlled minting mechanism.

Read the full analysis
What raised the score
  • Ownership not renounced
  • Mintable supply, but capped at 2.0%/year
  • Top-10 concentration > 30%
  • LP lock status UNKNOWN — the pool's LP could not be read
  • 1 High finding(s) from audit
  • 1 Low finding(s) from audit
Exact factors
  • Ownership NOT renounced (admin/mint authority retained)
  • Mintable supply, but capped at 2.0%/year
  • Top-10 concentration > 30% (52.3% total → 35.6% effective; 24.4% in EOAs, 28.0% in contracts — moderate)
  • LP lock status UNKNOWN — the pool's LP could not be read
  • 1 High finding(s) from audit
  • 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

Security Checklist

as of audit · Sep 42 of 5 checks passed
Contract verifiedVerified
OwnershipRetained
MintMintable
Liquidity lockUnknown
UpgradeabilityFixed code

Holders

as of audit · Sep 4, 2026
28.0%Contracts24.4%Wallets47.7%Everyone else
28.0%Contracts24.4%Wallets47.7%Everyone else
ContractsWalletsEveryone elseBubble area = share of supply
52.3%of supply sits with the top 10 holders
  • Contractstreasury, vesting, bridge, staking28.0%
  • Walletsanonymous holders, free to sell24.4%
  • Everyone elsethe rest of the supply47.7%
Effective concentrationwhat the score reads35.6%
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$42.89M across 22 pairs
Show 4 more pairs

The 12 remaining pairs hold $1.09M between them and are not listed. The risk score reads depth across every pair.

LP tokensUnknown

Whether the LP tokens are locked could not be determined.

Analysed pool$18.12MShare of depth42.2%

Security Findings

1 High1 Low1 Info
High

Centralized Minter Role

The minter address has the sole authority to mint new tokens, subject to mintCap and time constraints. This represents a significant centralization risk (7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic). If the minter's private key is compromised, an attacker could inflate the token supply up to the mintCap per year, devaluing existing tokens. The setMinter function allows the current minter to transfer this critical role, which is also a high-privilege operation.H-01

Issue

The minter address has the sole authority to mint new tokens, subject to mintCap and time constraints. This represents a significant centralization risk (7.3 Access Control, 7.4 Economic). If the minter's private key is compromised, an attacker could inflate the token supply up to the mintCap per year, devaluing existing tokens. The setMinter function allows the current minter to transfer this critical role, which is also a high-privilege operation.

Fix

Consider decentralizing the minter role by assigning it to a robust multi-signature wallet (e.g., Gnosis Safe) or a community-governed smart contract. This would require multiple approvals for minting operations or role transfers, significantly reducing the risk of a single point of failure.

Status

Unresolved

Low

Potential High Gas Costs for Checkpoints

The _writeCheckpoint function stores historical vote data for each account. While necessary for the governance delegation mechanism, if an account frequently delegates or transfers tokens, the numCheckpoints for that address could grow very large. This could lead to increased gas costs for subsequent _writeCheckpoint operations or for reading historical vote data (7.8 Operations).L-01

Issue

The _writeCheckpoint function stores historical vote data for each account. While necessary for the governance delegation mechanism, if an account frequently delegates or transfers tokens, the numCheckpoints for that address could grow very large. This could lead to increased gas costs for subsequent _writeCheckpoint operations or for reading historical vote data (7.8 Operations).

Fix

While this is an inherent design choice for Compound-style governance, consider monitoring the growth of numCheckpoints for highly active addresses. For future iterations, explore alternative checkpointing strategies or gas optimization techniques if this becomes a significant operational burden.

Status

Unresolved

Info

Older Solidity Compiler Version

The contract is compiled with Solidity version ^0.5.16. While SafeMath is correctly used to prevent integer overflows/underflows, newer Solidity versions (e.g., 0.8.x) include built-in overflow/underflow checks by default, making external libraries like SafeMath largely redundant and potentially saving gas (7.2 Code Security). Newer compilers also offer additional language features and security improvements.I-01

Issue

The contract is compiled with Solidity version ^0.5.16. While SafeMath is correctly used to prevent integer overflows/underflows, newer Solidity versions (e.g., 0.8.x) include built-in overflow/underflow checks by default, making external libraries like SafeMath largely redundant and potentially saving gas (7.2 Code Security). Newer compilers also offer additional language features and security improvements.

Fix

For future contract deployments or upgrades, consider migrating to a more recent Solidity compiler version (e.g., 0.8.x). This would allow for the removal of SafeMath library calls, simplifying the code and potentially reducing gas costs, while benefiting from the latest compiler optimizations and security features.

Status

Unresolved

Analysis

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

The Uni contract implements an ERC-20 token with governance delegation and a controlled minting mechanism. The contract correctly utilizes OpenZeppelin's SafeMath library to prevent integer overflows/underflows, which is appropriate for its Solidity version. A key centralization risk exists with the minter role, which has significant control over token supply, albeit with defined limits. The contract is not upgradeable, ensuring immutability.

Technical7/10Low risk

The contract demonstrates good code security practices by using OpenZeppelin's SafeMath library to prevent arithmetic overflows/underflows (7.2 Code Security). The implementation of ERC-20, EIP-712 signatures for permit and delegateBySig, and the Compound-style delegation mechanism are standard and well-understood (7.1 Architecture). However, the use of an older Solidity compiler version (^0.5.16) means reliance on SafeMath is necessary, whereas newer versions offer built-in checks, and the gas cost for updating vote checkpoints could become substantial for accounts with many historical delegations (7.8 Operations).

Governance2/10High risk

The contract incorporates a robust governance delegation system, allowing token holders to delegate their voting power, which is a strength for decentralized decision-making (7.5 Governance). Economically, the minter role holds significant power to inflate the token supply, albeit constrained by a mintCap of 2% and a minimumTimeBetweenMints of one year (7.4 Economic). The centralization of the minter role presents a single point of failure for token supply control (7.3 Access Control).

Upgrades5/10Medium risk

The contract is not designed with an upgrade mechanism (e.g., proxy pattern), meaning its logic is immutable once deployed (7.7 Upgrades). This eliminates upgrade-related risks such as proxy misconfigurations or malicious upgrade implementations. However, it also means that any future bug fixes or feature enhancements would require a new contract deployment and migration of assets.

Final RecommendationWhat to do about this score

It is recommended to consider migrating to a newer Solidity compiler version (e.g., 0.8.x) in future iterations to leverage built-in overflow checks and other language improvements.

The minter role, which currently holds significant power, should ideally be controlled by a robust multi-signature wallet or a decentralized governance mechanism to mitigate centralization risks and enhance security. Regular security reviews of the minter's operational procedures are also advised.

Contract & Record

1 audit on record
TypeSolidity 0.5.16
NetworkEthereum
Token age5y
Contract0x1f98…f984
Deployer0x4165…2cfb
Badge for your website
Uniswap 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 23, 202650Medium

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Uniswap a scam?

Based on the data, Uniswap (UNI) does not exhibit typical scam characteristics; its contract is verified, and no mint function exists, preventing arbitrary supply inflation. However, non-renounced ownership and significant token concentration (52.3% by top 10 holders) introduce centralization risks. While these contribute to its 'High Risk' score of 68/100 and warrant caution, they do not inherently categorize Uniswap as a scam.

Is Uniswap safe to buy?

UNI carries a 'High Risk' score (68/100) due to several factors. Contract ownership is not renounced, and liquidity is unlocked, raising concerns about administrative control over token parameters or market stability. Additionally, 52.3% of the supply is concentrated among the top 10 holders. These factors suggest potential for centralized influence, meaning investors should exercise elevated caution and conduct thorough due diligence.

Has Uniswap been audited?

The Uniswap (UNI) contract is verified, meaning its deployed bytecode matches the publicly available source code. This offers transparency for community review. However, contract verification differs from a comprehensive security audit, which involves expert analysis to identify vulnerabilities and logic flaws. The provided data confirms verification but does not explicitly indicate a full security audit has been performed.

Related Audits

6 more on the recordAll audits
EthenaENA · Ethereum50MediumEigenCloud (prev. EigenLayer)EIGEN · Ethereum50MediumYield BasisYB · Ethereum50MediumOlympusOHM · Ethereum50MediumUSDeEthereum50MediumPufferEthereum50Medium

Would You Like a More Detailed Audit of Uniswap?

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