MEANA Raptor Info
Meana Raptor was born from the fusion of golf, blockchain, and cosmic energy. Its journey began on an ancient golf course, transforming into a beacon of trust and transparency for a decentralized future.
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 fee distribution addresses.
- The owner can update the trusted oracle address.
- The owner can update the USDT token address.
- The owner can toggle USDT minting functionality.
- The owner can create new presales.
- The owner can update Merkle roots for private presales.
- The owner can update the presale status.
- The owner can update the presale configuration.
- The owner can pause all presales.
- The owner can perform an emergency withdrawal of ETH.
- The owner can perform an emergency withdrawal of ERC20 tokens.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the Meana Raptor presale smart contract. This analysis did not include functional testing (or unit testing) of the contract’s logic. Moreover, we only audited the mentioned contract for the Meana Raptor 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
informational Issues | 7 findings
Pending
#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.
Acknowledged
#2 informational 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.
Acknowledged
#3 informational Issue
Price Manipulation Risk During Active Presale
The updatePresaleConfig function allows the owner to modify critical presale parameters, including price-related variables (basePrice, mrtBasePrice, usdtBasePrice, and all priceIncreaseRate values), even while a presale is active and in progress. The only restriction is that the start time cannot be changed after a presale has begun. This means the contract owner can arbitrarily increase or decrease prices mid-sale, potentially harming users who made purchase decisions based on the initial pricing structure. To mitigate this, implement stronger restrictions on price-related parameter changes during active presales. Either completely prevent price modifications once a presale has started, or add a time-lock mechanism that gives users advance notice before price changes take effect.
Pending
#4 informational Issue
Potential Denial of Service via Failed Fee Distribution
The mintWithETH function distributes fees to four different recipients and requires all transfers to succeed via require(s1 && s2 && s3 && s4, "Fee distribution failed"). If any recipient becomes unable to accept ETH (due to a self-destructed contract, malicious fallback function, or other failure), the entire minting functionality will be permanently disabled, creating a critical single point of failure with no recovery mechanism. To mitigate this, implement a pull-payment pattern allowing recipients to withdraw their funds rather than pushing payments during minting, or add an emergency mode that can bypass failed distributions. Alternatively, add functionality allowing the owner to update fee recipient addresses if they become compromised, ensuring the contract can continue operating even if one recipient stops accepting payments.
Pending
#5 informational Issue
Missing emit
It is recommended to emit all the critical changes in the contract.
Pending
#6 informational Issue
No Check for Presale Activity
The function doesn't verify if the presale is active or has already ended. Allowing updates to a completed presale is generally unnecessary and could create confusion in off-chain tracking systems.
Pending
#7 informational Issue
No Validation for Price Increase Rates
Price increase rates are not validated and could be set to arbitrarily high values, potentially causing arithmetic issues or making mints prohibitively expensive after just a few purchases.