Wagmipad Info
Wagmipad introduces a revolutionary method for conducting token sales, aimed at delivering a secure and trustworthy investment environment. It combats fraud with cutting-edge strategies, directly addressing the challenges of ineffective marketing and investor fears related to scams. Through these pioneering approaches to raising funds, Wagmipad proactively confronts and solves these prevalent issues.
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
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
LaunchPadSales.sol
- The owner can create a new sale.
- The owner can withdraw the tokens from the contract.
- The owner can update the project sale end time.
- The owner can update the claim start time.
- The owner can update the signer address.
LaunchPadVesting.sol
- The owner can update the vesting schedule for the project.
- The owner can update the required staking per tier value.
- The owner can update the staking contract address.
LaunchPad.sol
- The deployer can initialize the contract.
StakingRewards.sol
- The owner can update the cooling period.
- The owner can pause/unpause the staking and un-staking of tokens.
StakingRewardsFactory.sol
- The owner can deploy a new version of the contract.
The contract is an upgradeable
Description: The deployer can replace the old contract with a new one with new features. Be aware of this, because the owner can add new features that may have a negative impact on your investments. Our team did not audit other contracts associated with the project. We recommend investors do their own research before investing.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the Wagmipad 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 Wagmipad 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
Findings and Audit result
high Issues | 2 findings
Pending
#1 high Issue
The owner can lock claim
The contract includes a pausable functionality that allows the owner to pause the claim and withdrawal processes. However, the absence of a defined limit on the pause duration poses a risk, as it could result in user funds being locked indefinitely. To mitigate this, a maximum locking period should be enforced, ensuring that token claims and withdrawals cannot be paused indefinitely, thus protecting users' access to their funds.
Resolved
#2 high Issue
Missing access control.
The absence of access control in the finalizeSale function poses a significant security risk, as it allows anyone to call the function. This could lead to unauthorized or malicious users finalizing a sale prematurely or tampering with the intended sale process. To address this, you should implement proper access control measures to restrict the execution of this function to authorized accounts only, such as the contract owner or a designated admin.
medium Issues | 6 findings
Resolved
#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 as such. This can be done using Solidity’s Address library function isContract, which checks if an address has associated contract code.
Resolved
#2 medium Issue
Inadequate Input Validation
Using >= 0 for validation is redundant for uint256 since it cannot be negative. A better check might be to ensure rewardsDuration > 0 if a zero duration is not acceptable. Error message: "rewardsDuration can not be zero" does not match the current condition. There should be the check that the value must be greater than zero.
Resolved
#3 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 as such. This can be done using Solidity’s Address library function isContract, which checks if an address has associated contract code.
Resolved
#4 medium Issue
Missing threshold for cooling period.
The contract includes a functionality that allows the owner to modify the cooling period to an arbitrary value, potentially preventing users from withdrawing tokens. To ensure fairness and security, a mechanism should be implemented to restrict the cooling period to reasonable, predefined limits. This safeguard would prevent the owner from setting an excessively high value that could indefinitely block token withdrawals.
Resolved
#5 medium Issue
The owner can set fees more than 25%.
The contract includes functionality that allows the owner to set platform fees up to 100%, which poses a significant risk as it could lead to substantial user fund losses. To prevent this, a restriction should be implemented to cap platform fees at a maximum of 25%. This safeguard will ensure fairness and protect users from excessive fees, enhancing the overall security and trustworthiness of the contract.
Pending
#6 medium Issue
The owner can withdraw claimable tokens.
The emergencyWithdraw function in its current implementation allows the owner to withdraw all sale tokens and payment tokens associated with a specific project. However, this could inadvertently claim tokens that are designated as claimable by users, effectively locking the buy and claim functionality for participants. This creates a significant risk of funds being inaccessible to users and disrupts the expected functionality of the contract. T mitigate this, Add a mechanism to validate that tokens eligible for user claims are not affected by the withdrawal. Moreover, Maintain a clear distinction between tokens reserved for users and those under the owner's control.
low Issues | 6 findings
Resolved
#1 low Issue
Missing events arithmetic
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
Resolved
#2 low Issue
Floating pragma solidity version.
The contracts should be deployed with the same compiler version and flag that they have been tested thoroughly. Locking the pragma helps to ensure that contracts do not accidentally get deployed using other versions.
Resolved
#3 low Issue
Floating pragma solidity version.
The contracts should be deployed with the same compiler version and flag that they have been tested thoroughly. Locking the pragma helps to ensure that contracts do not accidentally get deployed using other versions.
Resolved
#4 low Issue
Floating pragma solidity version.
The contracts should be deployed with the same compiler version and flag that they have been tested thoroughly. Locking the pragma helps to ensure that contracts do not accidentally get deployed using other versions.
Resolved
#5 low Issue
Missing events arithmetic
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
Resolved
#6 low Issue
Missing events arithmetic
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
optimization Issues | 1 findings
Resolved
#1 optimization Issue
Public function that could be declared external (external-function)
Use the `external` attribute for functions never called from the contract.