DATA & TRANSPARENCY

감사

Independent security reviews help identify smart-contract risks. A report is useful evidence only when its scope, code version and deployed contract can be verified.

An audit reduces uncertainty. It does not guarantee profit, liquidity, uninterrupted operation or the absence of every vulnerability.

Official Atlas Audit Registry

Two independent reports are currently linked from the official Atlas website. Publication confirms that a review exists; it does not mean that every finding was resolved or that the contracts are risk-free.

Beosin security audit

Smart-contract security review · report ID 202606171520

REPORT PUBLISHED

Review dates15–17 June 2026

NetworkBNB Smart Chain

Audited scopeDailyFlow, LockupFlow, Distrib, Transport and PositionHandler

Reported result: 1 Low finding — acknowledged.The report identifies a centralization risk and recommends using a multisignature account for privileged control.

Open Beosin report →Compare contract registry

Cyberscope smart-contract audit

Initial review 15 June 2026 · second review phase 30 June 2026

REPORT PUBLISHED

AuditorCyberscope

Review phases15 and 30 June 2026

ScopeAtlas Smart Cycle contracts and supporting components listed in the report

Report inventory: 1 Critical, 2 Medium and 17 Minor / Informative findings.The published report lists these findings as unresolved. Read the finding details and the official Atlas audit explanation before drawing a conclusion.

Open Cyberscope report →Open Atlas explanation

What a smart-contract audit checks

Access control

Who can call privileged functions and change sensitive state.

Reentrancy

Whether external calls can re-enter execution unexpectedly.

Token handling

Approvals, transfers, decimals and return-value handling.

Math & state

Rounding, limits, accounting and state transitions.

Admin controls

Ownership, pausing, upgradeability and emergency permissions.

Business logic

Whether implementation follows the documented Smart Cycle rules.

How to read finding severity

CCriticalCan threaten funds or core control.

HHighMaterial exploit or protocol failure.

MMediumMeaningful issue with constraints.

LLowLimited impact or hard-to-reach case.

IInformationalQuality, clarity or best-practice note.

Always read the auditor’s own severity definitions: labels can differ between firms.

Verify the report before trusting the badge

01Auditor sourceOpen the report from the auditor’s official domain.

02Contract AddressMatch it with the official Atlas registry.

03Code versionConfirm commit, bytecode or audited source version.

04ScopeCheck which contracts and functions were reviewed.

05FindingsRead every unresolved and acknowledged issue.

06RetestConfirm that remediated findings were reviewed again.

What the report covers — and what it may not

Commonly covered

Audited source code and listed contracts
Known vulnerability patterns
Access and token-handling logic
Specific code version in the report

Not automatically covered

Future deployments or upgraded code
Website, wallet or user-device security
Liquidity and participant behaviour
Market, economic or operational outcomes

Finding remediation lifecycle

01FoundAuditor documents the issue

→

02FixedDevelopers change the code

→

03RetestedAuditor checks the correction

→

04ResolvedFinal status enters the report

What an audit does not guarantee

“Audited” does not mean risk-free.An audit is limited by its scope, date, code version, methodology and available review time. It cannot guarantee future liquidity, economic results, website availability or safe behaviour by every participant.

Audit red flags

!Badge without a report link

!Report hosted only by the project

!Different Contract Address

!Old or unspecified code version

!Open Critical or High findings hidden

!“100% safe” or “guaranteed” claims