veToken Finance contest - fatherOfBlocks's results

VeAssetDepositor.sol

• L28 - it is not necessary to set a variable with its default value, this generates a higher gas cost.

• L89/117/132/138 - It is more expensive to validate that variable > 0 than variable != 0, therefore it is recommended to validate it like this.

Booster.sol

• L124/130/136/146/163/169/179/194/226/231/244/261/262/309/326/350/352 - A require generates too much gas cost, which could be avoided with an if and a custom error or using a private view function.

• L329 - Several improvements can be made in the for, first there is no need to initialize a variable with default value and second i++ is more expensive than unchecked{++i;}

• L517/526/541/551/556/562/586/590 - It is more expensive to validate a variable > 0 than a variable != 0, therefore it is recommended to validate it like this.

• L352/498 - It is less expensive to validate that a variable is true and false directly than to validate (variable == true) or (variable == false)

BaseRewardPool.sol

• L66/67/70/71/72 - it is not necessary to set a variable with its default value, this generates a higher gas cost.

• L122/123/124/132/173/196/215/301 - A require generates too much gas cost, which could be avoided with a custom if and error or by using a private view function.

• L137 - The updateReward() modifier could be a private view function and does not generate any gas cost.

• L173/196/215/273- It is more expensive to validate that variable > 0 than variable != 0, therefore it is recommended to validate it like this.

• L176/199/218/245/282 - Several improvements can be made in the for, first there is no need to initialize a variable with default value and second i++ is more expensive than unchecked{++i;}

• L124 - As extraRewards are added one by one, instead of validating in a require (extraRewards.length < EXTRA_REWARD_POOLS) it could be validated: (extraRewards.length != EXTRA_REWARD_POOLS), and this would result in less gas cost.

VE3DRewardPool.sol

• L210/234/253/285 - It is more expensive to validate that variable > 0 than variable != 0, therefore it is recommended to validate it like this.

• L148/214/238/257/281/326 - Several improvements can be made in the for, first there is no need to initialize a variable with default value and second i++ is more expensive than unchecked{++i;}

• L146 - The updateReward() modifier could be a private view function and does not generate any gas cost.

VoterProxy.sol

• L30/31 - The name and escrowModle variables are only set in the constructor and never change, they could be immutable, so that the gas cost is lower.

• L100 - It is more expensive to validate a variable > 0 than a variable != 0, therefore it is recommended to validate it like this.

• L217 - Several improvements can be made in the for, first there is no need to initialize a variable with default value and second i++ is more expensive than unchecked{++i;}

• L63/68/69/78/84/92/110/128/139/151/159/167/173/186/211/225/257/263/279/282 - A require generates too much gas cost, which could be avoided with an if and a custom error or by using a private view function.

• L70/93/96/110/113 - It is not necessary to validate that "bool variable" is == true, since it generates an extra gas expense, directly the if could work without the "== true".

• L227 - it is not necessary to set a variable with its default value, this generates a higher gas cost.