QTM Finance Info
Quantum Finance is a next-generation DeFi protocol on Sonic Chain that reinvents yield farming with advanced AI and dynamic tokenomics. We overcome traditional tomb fork challenges through AI-powered trading, deflationary mechanisms, and robust governance—delivering diversified rewards in Sonic tokens, stablecoins, and more. With a sharp focus on revenue generation and backed by experts in market trading and algorithm development, Quantum Finance is built for long-term stability and sustainable growth in today’s evolving DeFi landscape.
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
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
Zapper.sol
- The owner can set the native token.
- The owner can set the bridge token for the router.
- The owner can withdraw native tokens from the contract.
- The owner can add/remove the active router address.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the QTM Finance 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 QTM Finance 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 | 4 findings
Pending
#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. This can be done using Solidity’s Address library function isContract, which checks if an address has an associated contract code.
Pending
#2 medium Issue
Missing reentrancy guard
The function calls an internal helper (_swapTokenToLP) that, in turn, makes several external calls (for example, calling functions on the router such as addLiquidity and swap functions). None of these functions are protected by a reentrancy guard. The code does not include a nonReentrant modifier or any similar reentrancy protection. External calls occur after transferring tokens and before the final state check (require(amountOfLp >= minAmountOfLp, "lp amount too small")). If one of these external calls were to call back into the contract (via a malicious token or a compromised router), the attacker might be able to manipulate intermediate state before the function completes its execution.
Pending
#3 medium Issue
Token Behavior (Fee-on-Transfer/Deflationary Tokens)
Fee-on-transfer or deflationary tokens deduct a fee during every transfer. In the context of the zapInToken function, the contract expects to receive the exact amount specified by the user. However, with such tokens, the actual amount received can be less than expected due to the fee deduction. This discrepancy can lead to incorrect swap calculations and liquidity provision, potentially causing the transaction to revert or resulting in fewer LP tokens than anticipated. Check the contract’s token balance before and after the transfer to confirm the actual amount received. Modify the swap and liquidity logic to account for the net amount received post-fee. Moreover, Prefer using tokens without fee-on-transfer behavior or implement specialized handling for tokens that do deduct fees.
Pending
#4 medium Issue
Inaccurate Estimation for Fee-on-Transfer/Deflationary Tokens
The estimation assumes that the full amount is available for swapping. However, if _in is a fee-on-transfer token, the actual amount received may be less than amount, resulting in an inaccurate estimation. The function uses sellAmount directly for estimation. Fee deductions on transfer mean the effective amount swapped could be lower, which isn’t accounted for. To mitigate this, The estimation logic should verify the actual balance change after transfers or adjust for fee deductions to provide a more accurate estimate.
low Issues | 2 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Potential Rounding Issues
The function uses integer division when splitting the amount in half. If amount is odd, rounding down may lead to a small discrepancy that affects the estimated swap amounts. When amount is an odd number, the division results in a loss of one unit, potentially leading to slightly inaccurate estimations. To mitigate this, Consider handling odd values explicitly or documenting that minor rounding discrepancies may occur during estimation.
Pending
#2 low Issue
Remove safemath library
The compiler version above 0.8.0 has the ability to control arithmetic overflow/underflow. It is recommended to remove the unwanted code in order to avoid high gas fees.
informational Issues | 1 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.