Summary

Unnecessary checks that are redundant

Vulnerability Details

DecentralizedStableCoin.sol lines 48 and 61 have an if statement that checks if (_amount <= 0)
However the above is not useful as uint256 values will never be less than zero so there is no way a user or functions will allow inputs less than zero

Impact

Gas Savings: By using if (_amount <= 0) which is irrelevant vs if(_amount ==0) an additional opcodes is used since in the <= case complier does not have a LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO OPCODE or GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO OPCODES so relies on combining LT & EQ or GT & EQ in cases where less than or equal or greater than or equal are needed. Wheres if(_amount ==0) will use single OPCODE EQ

Tools Used

Manual Analysis

Recommendations

1. DecentralizedStableCoin.sol line 48
   if (_amount <= 0) {
   revert DecentralizedStableCoin__MustBeMoreThanZero();
   }

Rewrite to
if (_amount == 0) {
revert DecentralizedStableCoin__MustBeMoreThanZero();
}

2. DecentralizedStableCoin.sol line 61
   if (_amount <= 0) {
   revert DecentralizedStableCoin__MustBeMoreThanZero();
   }
   Rewrite to
   if (_amount == 0) {
   revert DecentralizedStableCoin__MustBeMoreThanZero();
   }
   the above saves from using 2 opcodes to using a single opcode