Ballon D'or Info
The problem with the old way is It used to be only journalists who had a say, but from 2007, coaches and national-team captains have been able to vote for their friends and teammates; oh, sorry, the players they think have been the most impressive. The voting system is ever so slightly crooked, but does allow for some excellent entertainment once the voting records are released. Players’ votes are as f**ked as the journalists’
TrustNet Score
The TrustNet Score evaluates crypto projects based on audit results, security, KYC verification, and social media presence. This score offers a quick, transparent view of a project's credibility, helping users make informed decisions in the Web3 space.
Real-Time Threat Detection
Real-time threat detection, powered by Cyvers.io,
is currently not
activated
for this project.
This advanced feature provides continuous monitoring and instant alerts to safeguard your assets from potential security threats. Real-time detection enhances your project's security by proactively identifying and mitigating risks.
For more information, click here.
Summary and Final Words
No crucial issues found
The contract does not contain issues of high or medium criticality. This means that no known vulnerabilities were found in the source code.
Contract owner cannot mint
It is not possible to mint new tokens.
Contract owner cannot blacklist addresses.
It is not possible to lock user funds by blacklisting addresses.
Contract owner cannot set high fees
The fees, if applicable, can be a maximum of 25% or lower. The contract can therefore not be locked. Please take a look in the comment section for more details.
Contract cannot be locked
Owner cannot lock any user funds.
Token cannot be burned
There is no burning within the contract without any allowances
Ownership is not renounced
The owner retains significant control, which could potentially be used to modify key contract parameters.
Scope of Work
This audit encompasses the evaluation of the files listed below, each verified with a SHA-1 Hash. The team referenced above has provided the necessary files for assessment.
The auditing process consists of the following systematic steps:
- Specification Review: Analyze the provided specifications, source code, and instructions to fully understand the smart contract's size, scope, and functionality.
- Manual Code Examination: Conduct a thorough line-by-line review of the source code to identify potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement.
- Specification Alignment: Ensure that the code accurately implements the provided specifications and intended functionalities.
- Test Coverage Assessment: Evaluate the extent and effectiveness of test cases in covering the codebase, identifying any gaps in testing.
- Symbolic Execution: Analyze the smart contract to determine how various inputs affect execution paths, identifying potential edge cases and vulnerabilities.
- Best Practices Evaluation: Assess the smart contracts against established industry and academic best practices to enhance efficiency, maintainability, and security.
- Actionable Recommendations: Provide detailed, specific, and actionable steps to secure and optimize the smart contracts.
A file with a different Hash has been intentionally or otherwise modified after the security review. A different Hash may indicate a changed condition or potential vulnerability that was not within the scope of this review.
Final Words
The following provides a concise summary of the audit report, accompanied by insightful comments from the auditor. This overview captures the key findings and observations, offering valuable context and clarity.
The owner privileges include the following:
- Include/Exclude wallets from fees
- Claim stuck tokens but not the native ones. Although, the owner will get whatever tokens are present in the contract's balance if he passes zero address.
- Update uniswap router
- Set AMM pair
- Update fees but cannot set in more than 10%
- Set auto swap
- Set swap tokens at amount
Files and details
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Findings and Audit result
medium Issues | 1 findings
Pending
#1 medium Issue
Miscalculation of Amount
There is a wrong calculation while calculating the amount after the transfer of fees. The fees amount should be subtracted from the transfer amount after the fees are transferred. For example, If the fee is 10% and the user transfers 20 tokens then instead of 18 tokens, 22 tokens will be transferred in total: 20 to the receiver and 2 in the contract
low Issues | 4 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Missing Events Arithmetic (events-maths)
Emit an event for critical parameter changes.
Pending
#2 low Issue
Missing Zero Address Validation (missing-zero-check)
Check that the address is not zero.
Pending
#3 low Issue
Floating Pragma
The current pragma Solidity directive is “^0.8.7". Contracts should be deployed with the same compiler version and flag that they have been tested thoroughly. Locking the pragma helps to ensure that contracts do not accidentally get deployed using other versions
Pending
#4 low Issue
Contract doesn’t import npm packages from source (like OpenZeppelin etc.)
We recommend importing all packages from npm directly without flattening the contract. Functions could be modified or can be susceptible to vulnerabilities
informational Issues | 2 findings
Pending
#1 informational Issue
Functions that are not used (dead-code)
Remove unused functions.
Pending
#2 informational Issue
State variables that could be declared constant (constable-states)
Add the `constant` attributes to state variables that never change.