Uranus Token

Uranus Token

What they say:

Uranus is a deflationary, passive yield generation token on the Binance Smart Chain network.

Full Audit

* Do Your Own Research. Investing in crypto assets is always risky. Not investment advice.
This is a full holistic audit. We evaluate the safety of the code, the tokenomics, the wallet distribution and the potential of the token, its originality and marketing strategy.

About the token

Uranus aims to raise awareness and funds to help people with Early Detection for Bowel Cancer.

Every month they will Mint 2 sets of NFTS. The first set will be distributed between the top 100 Wallets at random. The second set will be Put up for sale on their NFT Market place (Still Under Development) This will give all who are involved the chance to buy/sell and swap the Uranus NFT's.

100% of the Proceeds of the NFT sale will go to the chosen charity for the months in the form of a donation.

The Uranus Token is a community driven, charitable, DeFi Token. Each trade adds liquidity on Pancakeswap, adds to the charity wallet and reflects back to all holders. No need to farm, stake or claim.




Supply: 10 000 000 000

Team/Marketing: 500 000 000

The token has a slippage of 10% for all transactions, distributed as follows;

4 % goes to a charity wallet

2 % is reflected back to all holders

4 % goes to the LP


The code is quite original and well written. We did not spot any flaws or errors. However, there is a function that is worth pointing out:

The above code is related to a dev fee (which is the 4 % slippage that goes to the charity wallet). This code does what it is supposed to do.

However, as with all slippage functions, there is a theoretical possibility that the dev fee could be set to, for example, 100 %. If that happens, transactions wouldn’t go through unless the slippage tolerance was set to 100 %. Which would result in 100 % of the transaction going straight to the charity wallet.

This is not a risk unique to the Uranus contract, this risk that comes with most contracts that have slippage built in. Only when ownership is renounced, fees cannot be edited after launch.

There are custom built contracts where slippage cannot be adjusted before ownership has been renounced, but it’s pretty rare. All standard token templates have editable slippage.


The top wallet contains 71.8 % of the supply and is locked for 1 month. It was supposed to be locked for 12 months and thereupon release 10 % every month, but instead it got locked for 1 month with 12 unlocks due to a mistake or some sort of bug at DXsales lock.

Some tokens (5% of the total supply) will be sent from this wallet to team wallets, and out of the remainder, 50 % will be burned and 50 % will be locked and kept of market – to be used for a CEX listing that will happen in the future.

The second largest wallet is the pcs supply

The third largest wallet is a burned address, that contains 9.4 % of the supply

From wallet 4 and below, there are only normal holders that have bought the token. The tokens are rather evenly distributed. However, the 1 % wallet does not really hold 1 % of the circulating supply when many tokens are to be burned. If 50 % are to be burned, it actually holds 2 %.

2 % is still not a very significant number, at least not in this phase of a token’s lifecycle (the token launched just a couple of days ago and has a market cap of 248 000 dollars at the time of this audit)  

Conclusion: There is no good reason for burning this many tokens. The Uranus team was advised to do so by an external party and we have a hard time understanding why.

Usually, this many tokens are burned to hide the real size of the team wallets. For example, if team wallets consists of 10 % of the total supply, and 50 % of the supply is subsequently burned – the numbers on bscscan will say 10 % but in reality, it is 20 % (out of circulating supply), as 50 % of the tokens are off market.

Hiding the real size of the team wallets is not the purpose of burning in this case. It was poor advice based on a misunderstanding of how the burning of tokens works (it doesn’t have a direct price impact, only a theoretical indirect price impact). Hot burning (where tokens are taken from the LP supply and removed from existence) does have a direct price impact, but hot burns are still very rare – as it’s a relatively new concept.


The token launched the 5th of June 2021 and the team has already invested a lot in marketing. They have partnered with coinvote.cc and ran promotions with plenty of youtubers such as Aliencrypto, Xperts Studio and Alexandrus. They will do more marketing content with most of them in the near future. They also cooperate with twitter profile cryptomonkey.

The team has also just hired a reddit specialist that has already published CMS posts with a lot of interactions (100+).

Besides all the above marketing, they have a few celebrity videos scheduled and are launching official merchandise donated by the organization ‘Bowel Cancer Australia’.

Their telegram already has 900+ members and they have initiated some partnerships.. They are also doing multiple audits; with Rug Busters, Techrate and Certik. As mentioned, on the marketing side, things are looking very promising.

Its also promising that they have been forward-looking enough to keep a part of the token supply off the market – to be able to get a listing at a CEX. A listing at a CEX has HUGE potential in terms of price development. However, it’s very expensive and shouldn’t be seen as something that will happen in the near future, unless they get a lot of traction, positive price development and/or funding from the community.


The admin with the TG handle @UrToken has revealed his identity to Rug Busters. He is also open to the community as he posts frequently from his private Facebook profile. This factor outweighs all other factors in terms of safety. It is pretty rare for someone to be open about their real-life persona and then try to scam hundreds of anonymous people online in this day and age. There are not only legal implications to consider. Doxxing when it is not necessary says a lot about the intentions and integrity of a token owner.

Audit Result

Token symbol:


Audit type:

Full Audit

Audit status:


The token launched through Yearn finance and it was a complete mess. People had a hard time to claim their tokens after the launch and this resulted in a lot of FUD and fragile hands dropping heavy as a result. The token price dumped hard, but due to the marketing efforts, the original concept with a noble purpose combined with doxxed devs, we think that this token has what it takes to regain momentum. ‍Conclusion‍Uranus has an original and novel concept and great marketing focus, but they had a bumpy launch due to circumstances beyond their control. At first, the launch was botched because people had a hard time claiming tokens – resulting in panic and heavy selling. The token distribution is perceived weird due to, in our opinion, bad advice. However, the devs are trustworthy. One of them doxxed to us and is also publicly doxxed (Facebook profile). He has invested a lot of time and money into this, and we can tell that he knows what he is doing in terms of marketing. Uranus Token passes our audit. As mentioned, the token distribution is weird and there is a theoretical risk related to the wallet that holds the majority of the token supply. However, since the dev has doxxed and truly showed that he has a lot of skin in the game and passion for the purpose of this token, we feel very confident that this is a safe token. Not safe as in “safe it will moon” but safe as in “safe it won’t rug”.

Contract URLWebsite