Uniswap
Scanned August 14, 2026 · Check a different contract →
Uniswap
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 create new tokens and transfer them to any address, potentially diluting the value of existing tokens.
Code: function mint(address dst, uint rawAmount) external
The owner still has active control over the contract, potentially allowing them to exercise malicious powers.
Code: function setMinter(address minter_) external
Code: No explicit function found to block or pause transfers, but the contract is truncated
Code: No explicit function found to blacklist addresses, but the contract is truncated
Code: No explicit function found to change fees, but the contract is truncated
Code: No explicit function found to upgrade the contract, but the contract is truncated
Code: No explicit function found to withdraw user funds, but the contract is truncated
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 characters — only the first were analyzed, so parts of it were not examined. That's the real reason, not a vague size limit: NaN characters were cut off the end.
What the code allows
Evidence: address public minter;
This allows: The minting authority allows the owner to create new tokens, potentially diluting the value of existing tokens.
Evidence: function setMinter(address minter_) external
This allows: The owner has active control over the contract, potentially allowing them to exercise malicious powers.
Evidence: address public minter;
This allows: The ownership status indicates that the owner still has active control over the contract, potentially allowing them to exercise malicious powers.
Evidence: No explicit function found to restrict transfers, but the contract is truncated
This allows: Transfer restrictions could limit the ability to sell or trade tokens, potentially restricting user freedom.
Evidence: No explicit function found to charge fees, but the contract is truncated
This allows: Fees on transfer could confiscate user funds, potentially reducing the value of tokens.
Evidence: No explicit function found to upgrade the contract, but the contract is truncated
This allows: Contract upgradeability could introduce malicious code or alter the token's behavior, potentially harming users.
Evidence: No explicit function found to pause the contract, but the contract is truncated
This allows: Contract pausability could restrict the ability to sell or trade tokens, potentially harming users.
Worth reading yourself
- ›The contract uses the SafeMath library to prevent arithmetic overflows.
What this did not check
- ›The contract source was truncated at 22000 characters, potentially hiding important functionality or security risks.
- ›Liquidity lock, holder concentration, and actual on-chain balances are not visible in the source code and were not checked.
- ›The analysis may not be comprehensive due to the truncated contract source.
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 →