MAIGA Info
Maiga.ai is an AI agent platform that provides AI-powered trading signals and alpha insights for cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Designed for traders, creators, and speculators, Maiga.ai combines advanced AI framework with real-time data to optimize your DeFi strategies. Powered by ElizaOS AI framework, OpenAI ChatGPT 4o model, on EVM chains (BNB etc), using Google Cloud (GCP), and other leading technologies, Maiga.ai is your go-to solution for navigating the world of DeFi and crypto trading. Currently, Maiga.ai is focusing on MaigaXBT, which is our 1st AI agent on Telegram App that enable users to analyse crypto trading indicators with AI agent and machine learning. This is our 1st of many products in Maiga.ai that will enable retail users and traders to experience with AI agent driven crypto trading & fully automated DeFAI AI agent in future.
Team and KYC Verification
The team has securely submitted their personal information to SolidProof.io for verification.
In the event of any fraudulent activities, this information will be promptly reported to the relevant authorities to ensure accountability and compliance.
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.
Security Assessments
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
Contract can be manipulated by owner functions.
Contract is upgradeable
The contract uses a proxy pattern or similar mechanism, enabling future upgrades. This can introduce risks if the upgrade mechanism is not securely managed.
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 withdraw oMaiga tokens from the contract.
- The owner can update the authorizedSigner address.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the Maiga 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 Maiga 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 | 2 findings
Resolved
#1 medium Issue
Inconsistency in tier progression logic
The claim() function only advances to the next tier when the current tier is completely exhausted (when tokensClaimed >= tokenAllocation), while getCurrentClaimableAmount() unconditionally increments the tier index (tempTierIndex++) after every loop iteration regardless of whether the tier is full. This causes the view function to calculate token amounts using incorrect tier pricing, leading to discrepancies between what users see as claimable amounts and what they actually receive when claiming. The bug manifests when processing contributions that span multiple tiers or when tiers have remaining capacity, resulting in frontend displaying wrong information and potential user confusion about expected token allocations.
Resolved
#2 medium Issue
The owner can drain token.
The withdrawTokens() function reduces totalTokenSupply after transferring tokens to the owner, but doesn't validate that the remaining supply stays above totalTokensClaimed. This creates a scenario where if the owner withdraws too many tokens, totalTokensClaimed becomes greater than or equal to the reduced totalTokenSupply, causing the safety check require(totalTokensClaimed < totalTokenSupply, "Sale completed") in the claim() function to permanently fail. Once this condition is triggered, all future claim attempts will revert with "Sale completed" even though the contract may still hold sufficient tokens for legitimate claims. This represents both an accidental risk (owner miscalculating withdrawal amounts) and a potential centralization attack vector where the owner could maliciously lock user funds.
low Issues | 3 findings
Resolved
#1 low 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.
Resolved
#2 low Issue
Missing zero or dead address check.
It is recommended to check that the address cannot be set to zero or dead.
Resolved
#3 low Issue
Missing events
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
informational Issues | 1 findings
Resolved
#1 informational 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.