Root + Impact

Description

• Normal behavior: Deposit and redeem events should allow off‑chain indexers and analytics systems to reconstruct each user’s collateral position per token over time using event logs alone.

• Issue: The CollateralDeposited event omits the token address, so downstream consumers cannot determine which collateral asset was deposited, breaking accounting for multi‑collateral setups.

Risk

Likelihood:

• Reason 1 // Off‑chain infrastructure such as dashboards, alerting systems, and accounting tools commonly rely on events instead of reading full on‑chain state.

• Reason 2 // The protocol already supports multiple collateral types, making token identification via events essential rather than optional.

Impact:

• Impact 1 // Indexers cannot reconstruct accurate collateral balances per token, leading to incorrect health factor displays and risk metrics in external tools.

• Impact 2 // Operators and users lose observability into which assets back the system, reducing transparency and complicating incident response or forensic analysis.

Proof of Concept

When two different collateral tokens are supported, deposits appear indistinguishable in logs:

1. Protocol supports both WETH and WBTC as collateral.

2. User A deposits 1 WETH; User B deposits 1 WBTC.

3. Off‑chain indexer consumes CollateralDeposited(user, amount) events without a token field.

4. Both deposits appear as amount = 1e18 from different users but cannot be mapped to WETH vs WBTC, making any per‑asset breakdown impossible.

Recommended Mitigation

Extend the CollateralDeposited event to include the collateral token address and update emit sites accordingly.