Bid Beasts

First Flight #49
Beginner FriendlyFoundrySolidityNFT
100 EXP
View results
Submission Details
Impact: low
Likelihood: low
Invalid

Inconsistent Contract Naming in the `BidBeasts_NFT_ERC721` constructor function

Description

  • Contract names and metadata should be consistent to avoid confusion and maintain professional branding.

  • The contract is named BidBeasts but the ERC721 name is set to "Goddie_NFT" with symbol "GDNFT", creating inconsistency.

@> constructor() ERC721("Goddie_NFT", "GDNFT") {}

Risk

Likelihood:

  • Name inconsistency exists for all deployed instances

  • Users and integrators will notice the mismatch

Impact:

  • Brand confusion and unprofessional appearance

  • Potential trust issues due to inconsistent naming

Proof of Concept

function test_LOW_InconsistentContractName() public {
// Contract is named BidBeasts but ERC721 name is "Goddie_NFT"
string memory contractName = nft.name();
string memory contractSymbol = nft.symbol();
assertEq(contractName, "Goddie_NFT", "Contract name is inconsistent");
assertEq(contractSymbol, "GDNFT", "Contract symbol is inconsistent");
// This is a branding/naming inconsistency issue
assertTrue(
keccak256(bytes(contractName)) != keccak256(bytes("BidBeasts")),
"Contract name should match the contract class name"
);
}

Recommended Mitigation

- constructor() ERC721("Goddie_NFT", "GDNFT") {}
+ constructor() ERC721("BidBeasts", "BBEAST") {}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

cryptoghost Lead Judge about 1 month ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Non-acceptable severity

Support

FAQs

Can't find an answer? Chat with us on Discord, Twitter or Linkedin.