DogeFather Info
Dogefather $COLLAR is a rebase token inspired by Ryoshi's original vision. The purpose of $COLLAR is to tame $DOGE (Ryoshi Dream). The purpose here is to offer a synth to hedge the price of $DOGE on the ETH blockchain. 100% distributed to the community — through the staking mechanism ($OSCAR) and farming ($COLLAR).
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.
Contract is not upgradeable
The contract does not use proxy patterns or other mechanisms to allow future upgrades. Its behavior is locked in its current state.
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.
Ownership Privileges
- The owner can update the target ratio.
- The owner can update the keeper's address.
- The owner can update the new collar pair address.
- The owner can update the rebase interval.
- The owner can update the price feed address.
- The owner can update the minimum liquidity threshold.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the DogeFather smart contract. This analysis did not include functional testing (or unit testing) of the contract’s logic. Moreover, we only audited one token contract for the DogeFather team. Other contracts associated with the project were not audited by our team. We recommend investors do their own research before investing.
Files and details
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Findings and Audit result
medium Issues | 3 findings
Resolved
#1 medium Issue
Missing 'isContract' check.
The contract lacks a validation check to ensure that specific parameters are contract addresses. Without this check, there is a risk that non-contract addresses (such as externally owned accounts, or EOAs) could be mistakenly set for parameters intended to reference other contracts. This could lead to failures in executing critical interactions within the contract, as EOAs do not support contract-specific functions. To mitigate this, Implement a validation check to ensure that parameters designated as contract addresses are verified as such. This can be done using Solidity’s Address library function isContract, which checks if an address has associated contract code.
Resolved
#2 medium Issue
Missing Threshold
The issue in the setMinLiquidityThreshold function is that it lacks a validation check on the provided threshold value, allowing the contract owner to set the liquidity threshold to any arbitrary number, including zero. This omission could inadvertently compromise the contract’s intended functionality, as critical calculations depending on the threshold might behave unexpectedly. To mitigate this risk, a require statement should be implemented to ensure the threshold is within an acceptable range (e.g., greater than zero). This simple addition would safeguard the contract’s operations by preventing potentially harmful threshold values from being set. Implementing this change enhances overall contract security indeed.
Resolved
#3 medium Issue
Missing threshold for target ratio.
The setTargetRatio function allows the contract owner to update the rebase target ratio without any input validation. This lack of threshold checking can lead to the assignment of unintended values, such as zero or excessively high numbers, which may disrupt the rebase mechanism and cause erratic token behavior. To mitigate this risk, a require statement should be added to enforce that the target ratio remains within a predefined acceptable range, for example, greater than zero and below a maximum limit. Implementing such validation will help maintain stable rebase dynamics and ensure proper contract operation. Validation is vital.
low Issues | 3 findings
Resolved
#1 low Issue
Floating pragma solidity version
Adding the constant version of solidity is recommended, as this prevents the unintentional deployment of a contract with an outdated compiler that contains unresolved bugs.
Resolved
#2 low Issue
Missing events
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
Resolved
#3 low Issue
Local variables shadowing (shadowing-local)
Rename the local variables that shadow another component.