Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 17/03/2022
Pot Size: $30,000 USDC
Total HM: 8
Participants: 43
Period: 3 days
Judge: gzeon
Total Solo HM: 5
Id: 100
League: ETH
Rank: 29/43
Findings: 2
Award: $79.47
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: defsec
Also found by: 0x1f8b, 0xDjango, 0xNazgul, 0xkatana, 0xwags, CertoraInc, Funen, GeekyLumberjack, GreyArt, IllIllI, Kenshin, Ruhum, TerrierLover, WatchPug, berndartmueller, bugwriter001, cccz, cmichel, csanuragjain, hake, kenta, kirk-baird, leastwood, minhquanym, oyc_109, peritoflores, rayn, remora, rfa, robee, saian, samruna, sorrynotsorry, wuwe1
50.8486 USDC - $50.85
I noticed that only FEE_LIMIT exceeding check was applied to these fees' setter function. For instance, _mintingFee is used in multiplication, by setting its fee to zero will result in multiply by zero.
It is recommended to make a clarification whether any fee can be zero or not and in which circumstance(s)/condition(s). If it shouldn't, then a zero-value validation should be implemented to these fee's setter function.
#0 - ramenforbreakfast
2022-03-22T22:25:49Z
Not an issue, fees can be zero. I believe this is a documentation issue for expectations regarding fees. Marking this as disagree with severity.
28.6158 USDC - $28.62
Unmodified memory variable were found. If the variables are intended to be read-only, then calldata can be used instead to ensure that the variables are immutable and also cost less gas.
_tokenNameSuffix and _tokenSymbolSuffix)_tokenNameSuffix and _tokenSymbolSuffix)Those read-only variables should be marked as calldata instead which can save more gas.
#0 - ramenforbreakfast
2022-03-22T22:23:11Z
duplicate of #5