Wealth Mountain Info
Wealth Mountain is backed by a diversified investment wallet that continuously generates yield using a variety of earning vehicles. As the protocol gains adoption and more stakes / unstakes take place, the investment wallet yield will disproportionately increase eventually reaching a point where more yield is earned by the protocol than is paid out. While maintaining safe investment vehicles for backing, the diversification wallet will also be used to support other platforms in the space! Community votes will be enabled eventually to vote on which protocol you'd like Wealth Mountain to support.
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.
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.
- If you only use one variable in a mapping you can create one variable for the "Main" struct instead of using "MainKey[1]" constantly
- Stake fees are going to the owner's wallet in L249
- We recommend you to implement a delay of 24 hour between staking/withdrawing because of multicall contracts like MEV Bots
Files and details
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Findings and Audit result
medium Issues | 1 findings
Pending
#1 medium Issue
Logic will not work properly
"currDays >= FeesKey[40].daysInSeconds && currDays < FeesKey[50].daysInSeconds" L347 will never be executed because feesKey with the index 50 does not exist. That means in this case that calling the value "FeesKey[50].daysInSeconds" will be 0 and in the condition above the "currDays" will never below 0. "currDays >= FeesKey[50].daysInSeconds" L361 will be called everytime after the conditions before because "currDays" is above 0. In this case the "else" condition in L375 will never be executed. In this scenario the 40 days will be skipped and the 50+ days will be called every time.
optimization Issues | 3 findings
Pending
#1 optimization Issue
State variables that could be declared constant (constable-states)
Add the `constant` attributes to state variables that never change.
Pending
#2 optimization Issue
Public function that could be declared external (external-function)
Use the `external` attribute for functions never called from the contract.
Pending
#3 optimization Issue
Static variables
Use the variable "percentdiv" instead of hardcoded numbers
informational Issues | 5 findings
Pending
#1 informational Issue
Functions that are not used (dead-code)
Remove unused functions.
Pending
#2 informational Issue
Address zero was not excluded
Instead of checking the "ref" is dead address, you can write the following lines instead to save some lines of codes: if (ref != 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD){ user2.refBonus += refAmtx; user.refBonus += refAmtx; } Keep in mind, that there the zero address is not excluded from the ref bonus.
Pending
#3 informational Issue
Unnecessary payable key
Function is not using the "msg.value" in the function. Remove the "payable" key.
Pending
#4 informational Issue
Unused parameter
Remove unused parameter name - "totalWithdrawable" - "withdrawAmount"
Pending
#5 informational Issue
Error message is missing
We recommend you to provide error messages for your "require" statements because it informs the investor what happened while the error occurs