QA Report

[c4-bot-10]

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

[c4-judge]

Picodes marked the issue as grade-c

[c4-judge]

Picodes marked the issue as grade-b

[sathishpic22]

Hi @Picodes

Thanks for your judging and grades.

Upon reviewing the reports that received an A grade, I have observed that my submission exhibits a superior analysis. Notably, my report engages in a detailed examination of the protocol's codebase, whereas the A-graded reports lack such depth, focusing instead on superficial findings. Moreover, the findings in my report are not merely static detections generated by automated tools; they provide significant insights that are crucial for the sponsor, offering substantial value beyond the basic static analysis typically found in other submissions.

Given the comparative quality and depth of my analysis, I am confident that my report deserves a higher grade. I have ensured that my findings are not only more insightful but also more relevant to the sponsor's needs, avoiding common static findings that offer limited added value.

Thank you

[Picodes]

@sathishpic22 I hadn't dug in detail into the reported findings as the first ones are all close to being fully invalid:

• L01 is invalid unless you explain how this value could potentially be below 100 as Uniswap minimal fee is 100
• L02 makes no sense as this is called by the factory
• L03 the tax is correctly implemented as a fee
• L04 and L05 are exactly the same thing
• L13 is fully invalid as well

So I went for grade-b. Please make sure to start your report with valuable low findings