Transparency: Minor - but very annoying - smart contract issue - Ticker Name/Token Name switched

So we have fully confirmed that the token and ticker name were improperly deployed by our dev. This was also missed by Certik in their audit. Unfortunately - this is immutable. Fortunately, this can be corrected as we do not have a renounced contract and our liquidity pool was locked for 4 months.


So, we are working on a corrective response - these are details we keep to ourselves for the moment as they could potentially involve legal action, choosing a new vendor(s), other options.

Primary Impacts:

  • It’s annoying and looks unprofessional and will be that way forever unless we fix it
  • It requires downstream consumers to “hard code” a fix (e.g. you can’t just read it from the contract)
  • It could have other unforeseen circumstances

Secondary Impacts:

  • We can’t fix it with a locked liquidity pool
  • We can’t fix it while staking is open

However, I’m a firm believer in making lemonade out of lemons. There may be something positive we can do in the process of correcting it, I’m vetting this possible solution now.


Of course it’s a tad annoying, but better to have noticed it at this stage, than after the app released and with an increased number of holders! :+1:

Certik really weren’t worth their money, huh?

The LP is locked until the end of September, iirc. Personally, I’m completely on-board with delaying the staking until we’ve had a chance to fix this issue.

Depending on the cost, it might be worth discussing (and putting to a DAO-vote) whether to use some of the LP funds to cover the expense for the fix?

I reviewed a solution w/ Keith this morning. It’s actually pretty awesome :slight_smile:


Cannot wait to see the what you have in store

Anything you decide Adam I am with you.


“Certik really weren’t worth their money, huh?”
Not happy w/ their services. Let’s see if they will make it right.

“Depending on the cost, it might be worth discussing (and putting to a DAO-vote) whether to use some of the LP funds to cover the expense for the fix?”
Agreed. However the team is working on the solution, and we may be able to claw back some costs from this as we really weren’t delivered what we paid for.

1 Like

I think the staking can wait a little while. It’s best to get all things correct and right before we go main stream. A little delayed will save face and show a lot more professionalism in the outcomes.
As with the Certik situation, I have always told some of my crypto pals that the big guns are the most vulnerable and often times the most unprofessional. You just have to have a personal experience with them to realise that. The Luna and many other large crypto organisation meltdown is a typical example of such. Hype is what they bask on. The facede they put up is enticing but insiders will tell you the amount of unprofessionalism and laxity that is elicited in such places.
I’m happy you have something also in the looks for the situation. Hopefully it’s a better solution, as well as being one that will require less expenses. Keep the good work going. Kudos.

1 Like

I 110% believe we are bringing a better (actually a pretty awesome) solution to the table.

Because we’re absolutely in new territory - I’m talking to the core team about the best approach, and I think this is also a good point to discuss this with the DAO. I’m going to create a separate post on this I think as we have a few options…