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 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
Treasury.sol
- The operator can transfer or renounce ownership.
- The operator can update the masonry and quantOracle contract address.
- The operator can update the quant price ceiling.
- The operator can update the maximum supply expansion, bond depletion floor, maximum supply contraction, and maximum debit ratio percent.
- The operator can set the dao, dev, team fund address, and shared percentage value.
- The operator can update the max discount, max premium, and discount rate value to not more than 200%, respectively.
- The operator can update the premium threshold value.
- The operator can update the premium percentage value.
- The operator can update the minting factor for paying debt value to not more than 200%.
- The operator can recover the unsupported tokens excluding quant, bquant, xquant addresses.
- The operator can set the operator address in the masonry contract address.
- The operator can set up the masonry withdraw lockup Epochs, reward lockup epoch, and claim rewards burn epoch value.
- The operator can set the amount in the allocated seigniorage value.
- The operator can recover the unsupported tokens from the masonry contract.
- The operator can set the claim fees in the masonry contract address.
- The operator can toggle the claim fees setting in the masonry contract address.
- The operator can update the minimum claim threshold value at the masonry contract address.
- The operator can collect the accumulated fees from the masonry contract.
- The operator can update the oracle address in the masonry contract address.
- The operator can withdraw the balance from the contract.
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
Extreme Parameter Settings Risk in Treasury Contract
The treasury contract features multiple setter functions that govern critical monetary parameters—such as max supply expansion, bond depletion floor, supply contraction, and debt ratio—which, if set to their maximum values (100%), could lead to runaway inflation or deflation, severe token dilution, and unsustainable debt levels. Such extreme configurations would undermine the protocol’s stability and investor confidence by allowing a single operator to enforce drastic monetary policy changes. To reduce this centralization risk, it is essential to implement robust, decentralized governance measures, enforce additional safeguards and audits, and involve community oversight in any adjustments to these parameters.
Pending
#3 medium Issue
Extreme Discount/Premium Rate Settings Risk
The functions setMaxDiscountRate, setMaxPremiumRate, and setDiscountPercent enable the operator to define how aggressively bonds are discounted or redeemed. They allow values up to 200% (represented as 200000 in basis points). If set to this maximum, the protocol could permit bonds to be issued or redeemed at extremely favorable rates. A 200% discount rate might let bond buyers acquire bonds at a severe discount, potentially destabilizing token supply and encouraging excessive arbitrage, while a 200% premium rate could lead to exorbitant payouts upon bond redemption, draining treasury reserves. This significant degree of control, accessible solely by the operator, poses a centralization risk where a single party could manipulate these parameters to the detriment of the protocol’s overall financial health. To mitigate this, Adopting decentralized governance mechanisms and multisignature controls, along with additional safeguards or dynamic constraints on these parameters, would help ensure that any adjustments are transparent and in the broader community’s best interest.
Pending
#4 medium Issue
Extreme Premium & Debt Minting Factor Settings Risk
The setPremiumPercent function controls the bonus premium rate for bond redemption, allowing values up to 200%. If set to 200%, it can cause bonds to be redeemed at a disproportionately high premium—potentially over-incentivizing redemptions and draining treasury resources if not limited by the maxPremiumRate. Similarly, the setMintingFactorForPayingDebt function adjusts the factor for extra token minting during debt repayment. At a maximum of 200%, this factor doubles the amount of tokens minted to cover debt obligations, significantly increasing token dilution and potentially destabilizing the token’s value. Both functions are restricted to the operator, creating a centralization risk where a single party can set these parameters to extreme values, undermining the protocol’s economic stability. To address this risk, implementing decentralized governance measures and additional multisig or community oversight on operator actions is crucial, ensuring that any adjustments to these parameters are made transparently and with broad consensus.
low Issues | 2 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Missing events arithmetic
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
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.