QA Report

[c4-bot-7]

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

[c4-judge]

MiloTruck marked the issue as grade-a

[rbserver]

Hi @MiloTruck, thanks for your work!

Please take a look at the following 3 items related to this QA report.

1. It looks like that some wardens are asking if the reports for tokens reverting on transfer to the zero address mentioned by #142 comment, such as #108, can be considered as a valid medium issue. If so, would [02] Protocol can fail to support tokens that revert on transfer to zero address of this QA report also be considered as a valid medium issue since it describes the same issue?

2. It appears that another warden is asking if #261 would be considered as a valid medium issue. If so, would [13] Vault deployed for token that does not yet exist but will be deployed can cause stakers to lose their deposits of this QA report also be considered as a valid medium issue since it describes the same root cause of the issue?

3. Three reports of mine (#18, #19, and #21) are downgraded to QA and would be considered as a part of this QA report. Because this QA report has grade-a, would these three reports be regraded to grade-a instead of grade-b?

[MiloTruck]

1. It's OOS, see M-4 from Renascence Labs.
2. Was ruled as invalid.
3. The grades don't actually matter, QA is rewarded based on a top 3 ranking now. grade-a simply means the report is a candidate for top 3 (at least that's what I do).

[hattiepwvi]

Hi, @MiloTruck,

Could you please check the Issue#105 ExtSloads Function Returns Empty Array, Preventing Querier Contract from Fetching Vaults Queued for Withdrawal #105

Thank you very much

[rbserver]

Hi @MiloTruck, thanks for your reply, and thanks for your work again!

[rbserver]

Hi @hattiepwvi, I am not sure why you left your comment regarding your issue under my QA report. It may be clearer to leave your comment in the discussion so judges won't miss your comment.

[MiloTruck]

01 - Valid, but OOS.
02 - Valid, but OOS.
03 - Informational.
04 - Low.
05 - Low.
06 - Low, but I don't agree with the recommendation.
07, 08, 09 - Low, EIP-compliance issues.
10 - Informational.
11 - Informational.
12 - Informational.
13 - Informational, assumes the admin will intentionally whitelist a token that hasn't yet been deployed.
14 - Low.
15 - Informational, kind of speculative.

[thebrittfactor]

For awarding purposes, C4 staff have marked as selected for report and 1st place.

[hattiepwvi]

Hi, @rbserver
Thank you

[liveactionllama]

Just noting that C4 will exclude the OOS entries from the audit report.