SQUID
Scanned August 17, 2026 · Check a different contract →
SQUID
Netflix-tie-in token, Nov 2021. Price went $0.01 to $2,861 then to zero in minutes when developers pulled $3.38M from the liquidity pool. Owner-privilege modifier was named "ifSir" instead of "onlyOwner" to obscure it.
This means the same combination of owner powers is present (90% structural match) — not that this is the same code, or that it will do the same thing. See the reference case →
How the owner could rug you
2 owner powers found that could be used against holders. Each is a capability the code grants — not proof of intent.
The owner can change the contract's logic at any time, potentially introducing malicious code
Code: function _approveTo(address newGame) and function _setImplementation(address newImplementation) in ApprovedEngine contract
The owner can use their privileged role to manipulate the contract, potentially to the detriment of holders
Code: modifier ifSir() in SQUID contract and function _sir() internal view returns (address adm)
Code: No explicit mint function found in the provided code
Code: No explicit function to disable trading found in the provided code
Code: No explicit function to blacklist addresses found in the provided code
Code: No explicit function to change fees found in the provided code
Code: No explicit function to withdraw user funds found in the provided code
This checks only what the code can do. It cannot see whether liquidity is locked, how concentrated holders are, or what the team intends — those need live on-chain data. Absence of these mechanisms is not proof a token is safe.
What this could cost you
How much money would you put into this? We'll show you what you could actually lose — in dollars, not just a scary word like "risk."
Enter an amount above to see it in real dollars instead of just labels.
This contract's source is 41,899 characters — only the first 22,000 were analyzed, so parts of it were not examined. That's the real reason, not a vague size limit: 19,899 characters were cut off the end.
What the code allows
Evidence: modifier ifSir() in SQUID contract and function _sir() internal view returns (address adm)
This allows: The owner has special powers that can be used to manipulate the contract
Evidence: function _approveTo(address newGame) and function _setImplementation(address newImplementation) in ApprovedEngine contract
This allows: The contract's logic can be changed after deployment, potentially introducing new features or vulnerabilities
Worth reading yourself
- ›The contract uses the Initializable library, which allows for initializer functions to be called after deployment
- ›The contract has a fallback function that delegates to the implementation contract
What this did not check
- ›The provided code is truncated, and some functions or variables may be missing
- ›Liquidity lock, holder concentration, and actual on-chain balances are not visible in the source code and were not checked
- ›The analysis only covers the provided code and may not reflect the entire contract or its behavior
Automated review of verified source only. Not an audit. Does not cover on-chain state, holder distribution, liquidity, or deployer behavior. It cannot tell you whether a token is safe or whether to buy it. Absence of a finding is not evidence that a contract is sound — it may mean the relevant code was not readable, not verified, or not reached.
Want more than the free read?
A real security researcher personally reads this contract's verified source — not an automated re-run of the free check.
What's checked
The same 7 owner-power categories as the free check — mint authority, ability to disable trading, blacklist power, mutable fees, upgradeability, privileged withdrawal, and whether ownership is still active — plus 4 categories the free tier doesn't cover: exact current fee values and where they're set, whether ownership itself can be transferred (and to whom), any hardcoded or owner-settable exceptions to fees/limits/blacklist, and external contracts this one calls out to and trusts.
How it's done
I read the contract's actual verified source directly — no token-window truncation, since a person isn't limited by an LLM's context size the way the free tier is. Every finding cites the specific function or modifier it comes from; if the code doesn't determine something, the report says so instead of guessing.
What you get
A written report emailed to you within 24 hours: a plain-English summary, every finding with its evidence, and what the review could not determine from source alone.
Disclaimer: this is a capability review of verified source code, not a formal security audit and not investment advice. It reports what the contract's owner/admin technically CAN do — it does not check on-chain state, liquidity depth, holder concentration, or deployer behavior, and it does not certify a contract as safe.
Building something that needs this programmatically?
By purchasing, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
This is a surface read
It reports capabilities visible in source. It does not model economics, test exploit paths, or reason about how contracts interact. A real review does — with runnable proofs for anything it claims.
Request a security review →Paid reviews go further than this free scan: every finding is signed, timestamped, and hash-chained into a record — self-scored 16/20 against an independent standard →