QA Report

[c4-submissions]

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

[141345]

174 0x3b
l r nc
2 0 0

L 1 l
L 2 d dup of #962
L 3 i
L 4 l
L 5 i
L 6 d dup of #688

[c4-pre-sort]

141345 marked the issue as sufficient quality report

[alex-ppg]

QA Judgment

The Warden's QA report has been graded B based on a score of 20 combined with a manual review per the relevant QA guideline document located here.

The Warden's submission's score was assessed based on the following accepted findings:

Low-Risk

• [L-02]: On a Linear or Exponential Descending Sale Model, a user that mint on the last block.timestamp mint at an unexpected price. #1275
• [L-06]: Two tokens can be minted on first Periodic Sale Model period #1148

[c4-judge]

alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-b

[0x3b33]

Hey, L-06 is a duplicate of 1148, and I believe its severity should not be 'L' but marked as 'M' and marked as dupe. The same should be done with L-02, as it also points to the main root cause and is explained good enough, although shortly. The only issue is that I have misjudged the severity of those findings, I didn't submit them as medium in order to not spam the contest with inflated findings. Generally it is recommended that hard to qualify finding should be submitted as LOWs and if it's a MED the judge will raise it to it's appropriate severity.

[alex-ppg]

Hey @0x3b33, thanks for contributing! Submission #1148 ended up being nullified in the PJQA process.

Concerning #1275, I do not deem this submission to be of sufficient quality to be eligible for a portion of its rewards. #1275 and its duplicates have a detailed PoC, elaborate on what the impact is, how it should be corrected, etc. In the interest of fairness, I cannot provide this QA submission a reward as its comparative quality is very low and it would incentivize giant QA reports to be submitted that detail all issues and leave the burden of upgrading to the judges which is unfair from a contest's perspective.