Stasis Info

Stasis Network is an on-chain mutual fund, with a deflationary token as its medium of exchange. This yield-bearing treasury will supercharge automated and customizable passive income for users.

Stasis Logo

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.

0.93
Poor Excellent

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

Select the audit
Static Analysis Dynamic Analysis Symbolic Execution SWC Check Manual Review
Contract address
0xeaC4...43ac
Network
BNB Smart Chain - Testnet
License N/A
Compiler N/A
Type N/A
Language Solidity
Onboard date 2023/06/01
Revision date In progress

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.

Token transfer can be locked

Owner can lock user funds with owner functions.

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.

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:

  1. Specification Review: Analyze the provided specifications, source code, and instructions to fully understand the smart contract's size, scope, and functionality.
  2. Manual Code Examination: Conduct a thorough line-by-line review of the source code to identify potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement.
  3. Specification Alignment: Ensure that the code accurately implements the provided specifications and intended functionalities.
  4. Test Coverage Assessment: Evaluate the extent and effectiveness of test cases in covering the codebase, identifying any gaps in testing.
  5. Symbolic Execution: Analyze the smart contract to determine how various inputs affect execution paths, identifying potential edge cases and vulnerabilities.
  6. Best Practices Evaluation: Assess the smart contracts against established industry and academic best practices to enhance efficiency, maintainability, and security.
  7. 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.


Owner privileges

  • The owner is able to
    • update
      • router address
      • fees
    • pause the trading anytime

 

  • The taxes will be burned from the total supply of the contract

Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the Stasis 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 Stasis team, other contracts associated with the project were not audited by our team. We recommend investors to 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

high Issues | 1 findings

Pending

#1 high Issue
Fee receiver cannot be changed
STS+.sol
L1081-1085
Description

The "setFeeTo" function can only be called from the owner but in the function, there is a check for the msg.sender is the "feeTo". That means, only the owner can set his own address. If the "feeTo" address is not the owner, the "feeTo" address cannot call the function because of the "onlyOwner" function.

medium Issues | 1 findings

Pending

#1 medium Issue
Fees can be set to uint256 max
STS+.sol
L1063-1072
Description

The owner can set the fees up to type(uint256).max. There is no limitation on the fees. This can cause unwanted calculations in the logic of the contract and can lock the contract accidentally

low Issues | 3 findings

Pending

#1 low Issue
Missing zero/dead address check
STS+.sol
L501
L508
Description

It is recommended to check whether the passed address is a zero/dead address. The owner cannot update the "underlying" address after the deployment.

Pending

#2 low Issue
Burn
STS+.sol
L611-616
Description

Since the total supply can be 0 and the tax will be burned from the total supply, check that the total supply amount is not 0. Otherwise, the "_transferFrom" will fail when there are taxes and the total supply is 0. This will cause an underflow.

Pending

#3 low Issue
Dividing by zero
STS+.sol
L963
Description

Make sure not to divide by zero. The "previousBacking" in L718 can be zero. This variable will be set to the "relevantBacking" variable that is passed to the "_mintTo" function in L727. This will be passed to the "tokensToMint" function in L816. It is recommended to check for the "totalBacking" variable that it is not zero.

optimization Issues | 3 findings

Pending

#1 optimization Issue
Naming convention
STS+.sol
L461-464
Description

Constant variable names should be written in uppercase letters. If the constant variable is also private, then you should combine the underscore beginning and the uppercased format.

Pending

#2 optimization Issue
Implement a struct for better tracking
STS+.sol
L886
Description

Implement a new struct for price tracking. Properties can be timestampAt and the price to track when the price is updated.

Pending

#3 optimization Issue
Type
STS+.sol
L790
L1011
L902
L904
Description

Adjust the "uint" type to the "uint256" type.

informational Issues | 3 findings

Pending

#1 informational Issue
Remove Safemath library
STS+.sol
-
Description

Remove the SafeMath library and replace the mathematical operations with raw mathematical operations because the pragma version above 0.8.x is handling the overflow and underflow issue by default.

Pending

#2 informational Issue
Duplication
STS+.sol
L724
L756
Description

If the previous backing equals 0 then the "relevantBacking" is still "previousBacking" because it is called the same "balanceOf" function as the "previousBacking" did before when the value is 0. You can set it directly to "previousBacking" or just use it directly instead of "relevantBacking".

Pending

#3 informational Issue
Error messages are missing
STS+.sol
L1064-1066
L1046
Description

Provide error messages to the "require" statements.