Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Incentives paid to creator instead of depositor #201

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 6, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Incentives paid to creator instead of depositor #201

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 6, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

gzeon

Vulnerability details

Impact

The documentation is unclear, but it make little sense that incentives are only paid to the stream creator instead of depositors. This make the incentives more like donation to the creator but not actually incentivizing the stream.

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-streaming/blob/56d81204a00fc949d29ddd277169690318b36821/Streaming/src/Locke.sol#L518
@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working labels Dec 6, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 6, 2021
@code423n4
gzeon issue #201
db404eb
@brockelmore
Copy link
Collaborator

This is intentional, will make it clear that the stream creator is the one being incentivized.

@brockelmore brockelmore added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") labels Dec 8, 2021
@0xean
Copy link
Collaborator

0xean commented Jan 16, 2022

Marking as non - critical so the documentation can be updated.

@0xean 0xean added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Jan 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@0xean @brockelmore @code423n4