logo
bg_imgbg_imgbg_imgbg_img
exclamation mark iconReport an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

close icon
Name
Email
Your message
arrow-left

Multichain.org

16%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Multichain.org

Final score:16%
Date:15 Mar 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:41%

-25%(Penalty)

FAIL

Protocol Website:https://multichain.org/

Security Incidents

Date:10 Jan 2022
Details: $3m were token from users via smart contract vulnerabilities. Compensation plans were implemented. An effective token approval revoking tool was created by Multichain. This is evidence of good process quality. This was an insignificant amount compared to Mutlichain's [massive TVL](https://defillama.com/protocol/multichain), making this penalty small. This 10% penalty is thus offset 5% by good follow up quality, leading to a penalty of 5%.
Reference Linklink
Date:12 Jul 2021
Details: AnySwap lost $7.87 million. The project claims to have refunded the liquidity providers. This penalty is more than 6 months old, meaning it has expired.
Reference Linklink

Scoring Appendix

The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.

The blockchain used by this protocol
Arbitrum
Avalanche
Celo
Ethereum
Fantom
HECO
Moonriver
Polygon
Terra
Aurora
Harmony
Optimism
Moonbeam
Gnosis Chain
#QuestionAnswer
53%
1.20%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.0%
5.100
51%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.20%
9.0%
10%
10.0%
11.0%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.No
91%
16.90%
17.100%
0%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.0%
24.0%
25.0%
38%
26.75
27.No
28.No
Total:41%

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

  • Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
  • You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Smart Contracts & Team

53%

This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)

Answer: 20%

They can be found exclusively on Etherscan, as indicated in the Appendix. While token related contracts are documented, DeFiSafety does not consider these in our analyses - in this instance we want to see the bridge contracts.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc
20%
Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find
0%
Executing addresses could not be found

2. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 100%

Contract BSCBridge is used 100+ times a day, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
More than 10 transactions a day
70%
More than 10 transactions a week
40%
More than 10 transactions a month
10%
Less than 10 transactions a month
0%
No activity

3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/anyswap

Score Guidance:
Yes
There is a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction.
No
For teams with private repositories.

4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 0%

At 16 commits, the development history of Multichain's contract repository is not yet as rich as a portal to another world should be.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches
70%
Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches
50%
Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches
30%
Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches
0%
Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?

Answer: 100

Team members are public, though there is no one centralised list of employees. This LinkedIn employment list is incomplete, the CEO (for example) is not here.

Score Guidance:
100%
At least two names can be easily found in the protocol's website, documentation or medium. These are then confirmed by the personal websites of the individuals / their linkedin / twitter.
50%
At least one public name can be found to be working on the protocol.
0%
No public team members could be found.

Documentation

51%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://docs.multichain.org/

7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in sufficient detail.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The documents identify software architecture and contract interaction through any of the following: diagrams, arrows, specific reference to software functions or a written explanation on how smart contracts interact.
No
Protocols receive a "no" if none of these are included.

8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)

Answer: 20%

There is no coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation. However, there is API documentation that awards them 20% for this metric.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All contracts and functions documented
80%
Only the major functions documented
79 - 1%
Estimate of the level of software documentation
0%
No software documentation

9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no traceability between software documentation and implemented code. Without software function documentation, Multichain cannot have traceable documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code
60%
Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability
40%
Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions
0%
No connection between documentation and code

Testing

10%

10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)

Answer: 0%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 14% testing to code (TtC).    This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However, the reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible
80%
TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible
40%
TtC < 80% Some tests visible
0%
No tests obvious

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 0%

There are no documented tests for code coverage in the Multichain GitHub or audits.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documented full coverage
99 - 51%
Value of test coverage from documented results
50%
No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Multichain testing environment instructions can be found at https://github.com/anyswap/multichain-smart-contracts#multichain-smart-contract. However, this could really use some further elaboration.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite
No
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 0%

There is no detailed report of the Multichain test results.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Multichain has not undergone a Formal Verification test.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available
No
Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Multichain has not documented their contracts deployment to a testnet.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses
No
Protocol has not proved their testnet usage by providing the addresses

Security

91%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 90%

AnySwap has been audited once before launch (it is now known as multichain since a rebranding). It has been since audited multiple times, with a Trail of Bits security assessment being released very recently.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and the audit findings are public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and audit findings are public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. The Audit report is public.
65%
Code is forked from an already audited protocol and a changelog is provided explaining why forked code was used and what changes were made. This changelog must justify why the changes made do not affect the audit.
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes are needed but not implemented.
30%
Audit(s) performed are low-quality and do not indicate proper due diligence.
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public OR smart contract address' not found.
Deduct 25% if the audited code is not available for comparison.

17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $2M

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below)
90%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program
80%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k
70%
Bounty is 100k or over AND active program
60%
Bounty is 100k or over
50%
Bounty is 50k or over AND active program
40%
Bounty is 50k or over
20%
Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k
0%
No bug bounty program offered / the bug bounty program is dead
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Admin Controls

0%

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.

18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?

Answer: 0%

Admin control information was not documented in any part of the documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)

Answer: 0%

The relevant contracts are not identified as immutable / upgradeable.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Both the contract documentation and the smart contract code state that the code is not upgradeable or immutable.
80%
All Contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not)
50%
Code is immutable but not mentioned anywhere in the documentation
0%
Admin control information could not be found

20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)

Answer: 0%

Ownership is not clearly indicated.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
50%
The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 0%

Smart contract change capabilities are not identified in any contracts.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change for all smart contracts
50%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change in some, but not all contracts
0%
The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)

Answer: 0%

This information is not documented, making evaluation impossible.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety in clear non-software language
30%
Description all in software-specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)

Answer: 0%

Multichain's pause control is not documented.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If immutable and no changes possible
100%
If admin control is fully via governance
80%
Robust transaction signing process (7 or more elements)
70%
Adequate transaction signing process (5 or more elements)
60%
Weak transaction signing process (3 or more elements)
0%
No transaction signing process evident
Evidence of audits of signers following the process add 20%

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 0%

Multichain has no timelock documentation. It is clear that the founder is familiar with the importance of timelock documentation when it comes to DAO contracts, so it stands to reason there should be timelock documentation for the rest of the protocol.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documentation identifies and explains why the protocol does not need a Timelock OR Timelock documentation identifies its duration, which contracts it applies to and justifies this time period.
60%
A Timelock is identified and its duration is specified
30%
A Timelock is identified
0%
No Timelock information was documented

25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)

Answer: 0%

The timelock is of a non-specified length.  

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Timelock is between 48 hours to 1 week OR justification as to why no Timelock is needed / is outside this length.
50%
Timelock is less than 48 hours or greater than 1 week.
0%
No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

Oracles

38%

This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. These questions are explained in this document.

26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)

Answer: 75

Multichain uses an MPC network instead of an oracle based system. The contracts dependent are identified. There is no relevant software function documentation.

Score Guidance:
100%
If it uses one, the Oracle is specified. The contracts dependent on the oracle are identified. Basic software functions are identified (if the protocol provides its own price feed data). Timeframe of price feeds are identified. OR The reason as to why the protocol does not use an Oracle is identified and explained.
75%
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.
50%
Only the Oracle source is identified.
0%
No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Multichain documents no front running mitigation strategies.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.
No
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol documents no flashloan countermeasures.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.
No
The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

1// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later
2
3pragma solidity ^0.8.10;
4
5import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
6import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol";
7import "@openzeppelin/contracts/access/AccessControlEnumerable.sol";
8
9
10library TokenOperation {
11    using Address for address;
12
13    function safeMint(
14        address token,
15        address to,
16        uint256 value
17    ) internal {
18        // mint(address,uint256)
19        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(0x40c10f19, to, value));
20    }
21
22    function safeBurnAny(
23        address token,
24        address from,
25        uint256 value
26    ) internal {
27        // burn(address,uint256)
28        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(0x9dc29fac, from, value));
29    }
30
31    function safeBurnSelf(
32        address token,
33        uint256 value
34    ) internal {
35        // burn(uint256)
36        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(0x42966c68, msg.sender, value));
37    }
38
39    function safeBurnFrom(
40        address token,
41        address from,
42        uint256 value
43    ) internal {
44        // burnFrom(address,uint256)
45        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(0x79cc6790, from, value));
46    }
47
48    function _callOptionalReturn(address token, bytes memory data) private {
49        bytes memory returndata = token.functionCall(data, "TokenOperation: low-level call failed");
50        if (returndata.length > 0) {
51            // Return data is optional
52            require(abi.decode(returndata, (bool)), "TokenOperation: did not succeed");
53        }
54    }
55}
56
57interface IBridge {
58    function Swapin(bytes32 txhash, address account, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
59    function Swapout(uint256 amount, address bindaddr) external returns (bool);
60
61    event LogSwapin(bytes32 indexed txhash, address indexed account, uint256 amount);
62    event LogSwapout(address indexed account, address indexed bindaddr, uint256 amount);
63}
64
65interface IRouter {
66    function mint(address to, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
67    function burn(address from, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
68}
69
70contract MintBurnWrapper is AccessControlEnumerable, IBridge, IRouter {
71    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
72
73    struct Supply {
74        uint256 max; // single limit of each mint
75        uint256 cap; // total limit of all mint
76        uint256 total; // total minted minus burned
77    }
78
79    bytes32 public constant MINTER_ROLE = keccak256("MINTER_ROLE");
80
81    mapping(address => Supply) public minterSupply;
82    uint256 public totalMintCap; // total mint cap
83    uint256 public totalMinted; // total minted amount
84
85    enum TokenType {
86        MintBurnAny,  // mint and burn(address from, uint256 amount), don't need approve
87        MintBurnFrom, // mint and burnFrom(address from, uint256 amount), need approve
88        MintBurnSelf, // mint and burn(uint256 amount), call transferFrom first, need approve
89        Transfer      // transfer and transferFrom, need approve
90    }
91
92    address public immutable token; // the target token this contract is wrapping
93    TokenType public immutable tokenType;
94
95    bool public allMintPaused; // pause all mint calling
96    bool public allBurnPaused; // pause all burn calling
97    mapping(address => bool) public mintPaused; // pause specify minters' mint calling
98    mapping(address => bool) public burnPaused; // pause specify minters' burn calling
99
100    constructor(address _token, TokenType _tokenType, uint256 _totalMintCap, address _admin) {
101        require(_token != address(0), "zero token address");
102        require(_admin != address(0), "zero admin address");
103        token = _token;
104        tokenType = _tokenType;
105        totalMintCap = _totalMintCap;
106        _grantRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE, _admin);
107    }
108
109    function owner() external view returns (address) {
110        return getRoleMember(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE, 0);
111    }
112
113    function _mint(address to, uint256 amount) internal {
114        require(to != address(this), "forbid mint to address(this)");
115        require(!allMintPaused && !mintPaused[msg.sender], "mint paused");
116        Supply storage s = minterSupply[msg.sender];
117        require(amount <= s.max, "minter max exceeded");
118        s.total += amount;
119        require(s.total <= s.cap, "minter cap exceeded");
120        totalMinted += amount;
121        require(totalMinted <= totalMintCap, "total mint cap exceeded");
122
123        if (tokenType == TokenType.Transfer) {
124            IERC20(token).safeTransfer(to, amount);
125        } else {
126            TokenOperation.safeMint(token, to, amount);
127        }
128    }
129
130    function _burn(address from, uint256 amount) internal {
131        require(from != address(this), "forbid burn from address(this)");
132        require(!allBurnPaused && !burnPaused[msg.sender], "burn paused");
133        Supply storage s = minterSupply[msg.sender];
134        require(s.total >= amount, "minter burn amount exceeded");
135        s.total -= amount;
136        require(totalMinted >= amount, "total burn amount exceeded");
137        totalMinted -= amount;
138
139        if (tokenType == TokenType.Transfer) {
140            IERC20(token).safeTransferFrom(from, address(this), amount);
141        } else if (tokenType == TokenType.MintBurnAny) {
142            TokenOperation.safeBurnAny(token, from, amount);
143        } else if (tokenType == TokenType.MintBurnFrom) {
144            TokenOperation.safeBurnFrom(token, from, amount);
145        } else if (tokenType == TokenType.MintBurnSelf) {
146            IERC20(token).safeTransferFrom(from, address(this), amount);
147            TokenOperation.safeBurnSelf(token, amount);
148        }
149    }
150
151    // impl IRouter `mint`
152    function mint(address to, uint256 amount) external onlyRole(MINTER_ROLE) returns (bool) {
153        _mint(to, amount);
154        return true;
155    }
156
157    // impl IRouter `burn`
158    function burn(address from, uint256 amount) external onlyRole(MINTER_ROLE) returns (bool) {
159        _burn(from, amount);
160        return true;
161    }
162
163    // impl IBridge `Swapin`
164    function Swapin(bytes32 txhash, address account, uint256 amount) external onlyRole(MINTER_ROLE) returns (bool) {
165        _mint(account, amount);
166        emit LogSwapin(txhash, account, amount);
167        return true;
168    }
169
170    // impl IBridge `Swapout`
171    function Swapout(uint256 amount, address bindaddr) public returns (bool) {
172        require(bindaddr != address(0), "zero bind address");
173        _burn(msg.sender, amount);
174        emit LogSwapout(msg.sender, bindaddr, amount);
175        return true;
176    }
177
178    function setTotalMintCap(uint256 cap) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
179        totalMintCap = cap;
180    }
181
182    function addMinter(address minter, uint256 cap, uint256 max) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
183        _grantRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter);
184        minterSupply[minter].cap = cap;
185        minterSupply[minter].max = max;
186        mintPaused[minter] = false;
187        burnPaused[minter] = false;
188    }
189
190    function removeMinter(address minter) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
191        _revokeRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter);
192        minterSupply[minter].cap = 0;
193        minterSupply[minter].max = 0;
194    }
195
196    function setMinterCap(address minter, uint256 cap) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
197        require(hasRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter), "not minter");
198        minterSupply[minter].cap = cap;
199    }
200
201    function setMinterMax(address minter, uint256 max) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
202        require(hasRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter), "not minter");
203        minterSupply[minter].max = max;
204    }
205
206    function setMinterTotal(address minter, uint256 total) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
207        minterSupply[minter].total = total;
208    }
209
210    function setAllMintPaused(bool paused) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
211        allMintPaused = paused;
212    }
213
214    function setAllBurnPaused(bool paused) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
215        allBurnPaused = paused;
216    }
217
218    function setAllMintAndBurnPaused(bool paused) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
219        allMintPaused = paused;
220        allBurnPaused = paused;
221    }
222
223    function setMintPaused(address minter, bool paused) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
224        require(hasRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter), "not minter");
225        mintPaused[minter] = paused;
226    }
227
228    function setBurnPaused(address minter, bool paused) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
229        require(hasRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter), "not minter");
230        burnPaused[minter] = paused;
231    }
232
233    function setMintAndBurnPaused(address minter, bool paused) external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
234        require(hasRole(MINTER_ROLE, minter), "not minter");
235        mintPaused[minter] = paused;
236        burnPaused[minter] = paused;
237    }
238}
239

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
4
1672
221
407
151
1052
119

Tests to Code: 151 / 1052 = 14 %