Contract Powers Registry / base
Aerodrome Router
0xcf77a3ba9a5ca399b7c97c74d54e5b1beb874e43 on base
In one line: retained powers: mint.
Can this code be replaced?
No proxy pattern found. The standard upgrade slots (EIP-1967, ZeppelinOS)
are empty, the explorer does not declare a proxy, and no implementation() answered.
The code at this address is very likely the code that runs.
Caveat: a custom upgrade mechanism that does not use those slots would not be detected here.
Who holds the keys?
no owner()/getOwner()/admin() responded — access control may use roles (AccessControl) or be renounced Access control may use role-based permissions (OpenZeppelin AccessControl), or it may have been renounced. This registry does not enumerate role holders.
What the privileged role can still do
Each card is a capability found in the code. declared = the contract’s published interface exposes it. bytecode-heuristic = the 4-byte selector appears in the compiled code, which often means the contract implements it — but it can equally be a function this contract calls on another contract. Only a verified source settles that.
Nothing confirmed here. Every match below is heuristic.
A swap router, for example, carries mint(address) because it calls mint on a pool —
not because it can mint anything itself. Treat these as leads to check, not as findings.
New tokens can be created
bytecode-heuristicSupply is not fixed by the code — the privileged role can issue more.
Evidence (1)
mint(address)bytecode-selector
Is there a bug bounty on this?
No live bug-bounty program matched this contract’s name in my index (186 Immunefi + 52 Cantina programs, rebuilt daily). Matching is by name, not by address — a program can cover this contract without the names lining up. Browse the full index at Bounty Radar.
Raw facts
| Chain | base (chainId 8453) |
|---|---|
| Contract name | Router |
| Compiler | v0.8.19+commit.7dd6d404 |
| License | BSL 1.1 |
| Bytecode size | 23,581 bytes |
| DELEGATECALL | absent |
| SELFDESTRUCT | absent |
| CREATE2 | absent |
| Explorer | view on block explorer ↗ |
How this was produced, and what it cannot tell you
Storage slots, bytecode and eth_call results were read from public RPC nodes;
where the source is verified, the published interface was read too. Nothing here is copied from another
site’s opinion. Generated in 1347 ms on 2026-08-29.
- confidence="declared" means the ABI exposes the function. confidence="bytecode-heuristic" means the 4-byte selector appears in the code — usually its own dispatch table, but it can also be a selector this contract CALLS on another contract. Only a verified ABI settles it.
- admin.ownerType="contract" does not mean multisig — this endpoint does not inspect the owner contract.
- bounty.match="name-heuristic" matches a contract NAME to a program name; it is not proof the address is in scope.
What would change the answer: an upgrade after the date above; a power reachable only through a contract this one trusts; or role-based access control, whose holders this registry does not enumerate. Re-read the chain before you rely on it.
Machine-readable
Same facts as JSON, free, no key: /c/base/0xcf77a3ba9a5ca399b7c97c74d54e5b1beb874e43.json.
Live lookups for any address (not just this list) are $0.05 per call.
Want a human-grade read?
This page is automated pattern-matching. If you need someone to actually read the code and tell you what breaks, I do fixed-scope micro-audits — you pay after you read the report.