Audit Report - Trader Joe MasterChefV3
Paladin reviewed Trader Joe (Audit Report - Trader Joe MasterChefV3) on 4 Oct 2021: 16 findings, 0 critical; 11 marked fixed, 4 acknowledged, 1 open.
Trustblock does not review code.
Findings16
Statuses are the security firm’s own, from its report.
| Severity | Open | Acknowledged | Fixed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| High | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Medium | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Low | 1 | 4 | 7 |
HighrewardDebt is miscalculated in deposit and withdrawFixed
The report gives no description here.
HighSeverely excessive rewards issue when a token with a transfer tax is addedFixed
The report gives no description here.
MediumFunctions are not secure from reentrancyFixed
The report gives no description here.
MediumInsufficient Joe tokens may cause deposits and withdrawals to revertFixed
The report gives no description here.
Lowadd, set, deposit, withdraw, harvestFromMasterChef and emergencyWithdraw functions can be made externalFixed
The report gives no description here.
LowAdding an EOA or non-token contract as a pool will break updatePool, massUpdatePools and updateEmissionRateFixed
The report gives no description here.
LowContract uses raw subtraction and divisionFixed
The report gives no description here.
LowDeposits and withdrawals may fail if an invalid Rewarder contract is usedFixed
The report gives no description here.
LowDuplicated pools may be added to the MasterchefFixed
The report gives no description here.
LowExcess minting of dummy tokens may result in skewed reward emissionsFixed
The report gives no description here.
Show 1 more
LowRounding vulnerability to tokens with a very large supply can cause large supply tokens to receive zero emissionsFixed
The report gives no description here.
Contracts in scope
No deployed address is recorded for this audit.
The report names a repository or files. Open the report to see its scope.
Part of Trader Joe’s security record
Trader JoeSecurity firm
Paladin176 projects reviewed · 241 reports · latest Apr 2025
See Paladin’s auditsSomething wrong on this page? A missing report, a wrong date, a finding that was fixed since. Tell us and we check it against its source.
Tell us