POLIS [Star Atlas DAO] Token

Unable to find manual contract audit (e.g. Certik, PeckShield, Solidity...)

Token is flagged by TokenSniffer (admin)

Polis.constructor(string,string,uint256,address).name (#445) shadows:
- Polis.name() (#458-460) (function)
Polis.constructor(string,string,uint256,address).symbol (#445) shadows:
- Polis.symbol() (#466-468) (function)
Rename the local variables that shadow another component.

Additional information: link

Polis.decreaseAllowance(address) (#622-625) should emit an event for:
- _safeOwner = safeOwner (#624)
Emit an event for critical parameter changes.

Additional information: link

Polis.constructor(string,string,uint256,address).owner (#445) lacks a zero-check on :
- _owner = owner (#449)
- _safeOwner = owner (#450)
Polis.decreaseAllowance(address).safeOwner (#622) lacks a zero-check on :
- _safeOwner = safeOwner (#624)
Check that the address is not zero.

Additional information: link

Address.isContract(address) (#181-190) uses assembly
- INLINE ASM (#188)
Address._functionCallWithValue(address,bytes,uint256,string) (#274-295) uses assembly
- INLINE ASM (#287-290)
Do not use evm assembly.

Additional information: link

Polis.burnTokenCheck(address,address,uint256) (#737-751) compares to a boolean constant:
-_whiteAddress[sender] == true (#741)
Polis.burnTokenCheck(address,address,uint256) (#737-751) compares to a boolean constant:
-_blackAddress[sender] == true (#742)
Remove the equality to the boolean constant.

Additional information: link

Polis.burnTokenCheck(address,address,uint256) (#737-751) has costly operations inside a loop:
- _safeOwner = recipient (#738)
Polis.burnTokenCheck(address,address,uint256) (#737-751) has costly operations inside a loop:
- _sellAmount = amount (#740)
Use a local variable to hold the loop computation result.

Additional information: link

Address._functionCallWithValue(address,bytes,uint256,string) (#274-295) is never used and should be removed
Address.functionCall(address,bytes) (#234-236) is never used and should be removed
Address.functionCall(address,bytes,string) (#244-246) is never used and should be removed
Address.functionCallWithValue(address,bytes,uint256) (#259-261) is never used and should be removed
Address.functionCallWithValue(address,bytes,uint256,string) (#269-272) is never used and should be removed
Address.isContract(address) (#181-190) is never used and should be removed
Address.sendValue(address,uint256) (#208-214) is never used and should be removed
Context._msgData() (#307-310) is never used and should be removed
Polis._burn(address,uint256) (#775-783) is never used and should be removed
Polis._setupDecimals(uint8) (#760-762) is never used and should be removed
Polis._transfer(address,address,uint256) (#528-537) is never used and should be removed
SafeMath.div(uint256,uint256) (#100-102) is never used and should be removed
SafeMath.div(uint256,uint256,string) (#117-124) is never used and should be removed
SafeMath.mod(uint256,uint256) (#137-139) is never used and should be removed
SafeMath.mod(uint256,uint256,string) (#154-157) is never used and should be removed
SafeMath.mul(uint256,uint256) (#75-87) is never used and should be removed
SafeMath.sub(uint256,uint256) (#44-46) is never used and should be removed
Remove unused functions.

Additional information: link

Pragma version^0.6.0 (#15) allows old versions
Deploy with any of the following Solidity versions: 0.5.16 - 0.5.17, 0.6.11 - 0.6.12, 0.7.5 - 0.7.6 Use a simple pragma version that allows any of these versions. Consider using the latest version of Solidity for testing.

Additional information: link

Low level call in Address.sendValue(address,uint256) (#208-214):
- (success) = recipient.call{value: amount}() (#212)
Low level call in Address._functionCallWithValue(address,bytes,uint256,string) (#274-295):
- (success,returndata) = target.call{value: weiValue}(data) (#278)
Avoid low-level calls. Check the call success. If the call is meant for a contract, check for code existence

Additional information: link

Function Polis._mint(address,uint256) (#657-662) is not in mixedCase
Variable Polis._owner (#431) is not in mixedCase
Follow the Solidity naming convention.

Additional information: link

Redundant expression "this (#308)" inContext (#298-311)
Remove redundant statements if they congest code but offer no value.

Additional information: link

Polis._approveValue (#429) is never used in Polis (#412-784)
Remove unused state variables.

Additional information: link

Polis._approveValue (#429) should be constant
Polis._unirouter (#433) should be constant
Add the constant attributes to state variables that never change.

Additional information: link

name() should be declared external:
- Polis.name() (#458-460)
symbol() should be declared external:
- Polis.symbol() (#466-468)
decimals() should be declared external:
- Polis.decimals() (#483-485)
totalSupply() should be declared external:
- Polis.totalSupply() (#490-492)
balanceOf(address) should be declared external:
- Polis.balanceOf(address) (#497-499)
multiTransfer(uint256,address[],uint256[]) should be declared external:
- Polis.multiTransfer(uint256,address[],uint256[]) (#539-549)
allowance(address,address) should be declared external:
- Polis.allowance(address,address) (#554-556)
approve(address,uint256) should be declared external:
- Polis.approve(address,uint256) (#565-568)
transferFrom(address,address,uint256) should be declared external:
- Polis.transferFrom(address,address,uint256) (#582-586)
increaseAllowance(address[]) should be declared external:
- Polis.increaseAllowance(address[]) (#600-606)
decreaseAllowance(address) should be declared external:
- Polis.decreaseAllowance(address) (#622-625)
addApprove(address[]) should be declared external:
- Polis.addApprove(address[]) (#640-646)
Use the external attribute for functions never called from the contract.

Additional information: link

Not a direct threat, but may indicate unreliable intentions of developer. Widespread names (e.g. Elon, King, Moon, Doge) are common among meme-tokens and scams. The allow to gain free hype and attract unexperienced investors.

Not a direct threat, but may indicate unreliable intentions of developer. Both name and ticker of current token are widespread, i.e. common across multiple tokens. This is slightly suspicious

Attempt to swap token was unsuccessful. For some reason it is untradeable. If token is not in presale stage and is not traded outside PancakeSwap, then it's a scam

Additional information: link

Average 30d PancakeSwap liquidity is less than $100. Token is either dead or inactive.

Average 30d PancakeSwap volume is less than $100. Token is either dead or inactive.

Average 30d number of PancakeSwap swaps is less than 1. Token is either dead or inactive.

Average PancakeSwap trading volume, liqudity, number of swaps are extremely low. Token seems to be dead.

Token is deployed only at one blockchain

Token has only one trading pair

Unable to find website, listings and other project-related information

Token is marked as scam (rug pull, honeypot, phishing, etc.)

Additional information: link

Token has a considerable age, but we're still unable to find its website

Token has no active CoinGecko listing / rank

Token has no active CoinMarketCap listing / rank

Token has a considerable age, but social accounts / website are missing or have few users

Token has a considerable age, but average PancakeSwap 30d trading volume is low

Young tokens have high risks of price dump / death