QA Report

[code423n4]

See the markdown file with the details of this report here.

[c4-pre-sort]

0xSorryNotSorry marked the issue as high quality report

[GalloDaSballo]

LOW‑1 Add to blacklist function 1 Ignoring

LOW‑2 Do not allow fees to be set to 100% 2 L

LOW‑3 decimals() not part of ERC20 standard 2 L

LOW‑4 Event is missing parameters 7 NC

LOW‑5 Missing Contract-existence Checks Before Low-level Calls 1 Ignoring

LOW‑6 Missing ReEntrancy Guard to withdraw function 1 ReEntrancy Guard to withdraw f

LOW‑7 Missing Checks for Address(0x0) 1 L

LOW‑8 Contracts are not using their OZ Upgradeable counterparts 5 Ignoring

LOW‑9 Missing length check for inputs 4 R

LOW‑10 Protect your NFT from copying in POW forks 2 L

LOW‑11 tokenURI() does not follow EIP-721 2 M Dup of 44

LOW‑12 Unused receive() Function Will Lock Ether In Contract 3 Ignoring

NC‑1 Add a timelock to critical functions 12 Disputing

NC‑2 Avoid Floating Pragmas: The Version Should Be Locked 5 NC

NC‑3 Critical Changes Should Use Two-step Procedure 12 NC

NC‑4 Event Is Missing Indexed Fields 5 Ignoring

NC‑5 Imports can be grouped together 24 NC

NC‑6 NatSpec return parameters should be included in contracts 1 NC

NC‑7 No need to initialize uints to zero 2 R

NC‑8 Initial value check is missing in Set Functions 10 R

NC‑9 Missing event for critical parameter change 5 R

NC‑10 Implementation contract may not be initialized 3 R

NC‑11 Public Functions Not Called By The Contract Should Be Declared External Instead 8 R

NC‑12 require() / revert() Statements Should Have Descriptive Reason Strings 1 NC

NC‑13 Use bytes.concat() 7 NC

NC‑14 Use of Block.Timestamp Disputing

[GalloDaSballo]

3L 6R 7NC 2 Disputed

3L 6R 7NC 2 Disputed

[c4-judge]

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as grade-b

[GalloDaSballo]

Good initial submission, but most Wardens have sent a lot of HMs that in downgrading gave them a way higher score than this