Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
Was the 'Owner can change balances' function in the original contract or just the Base $NOUNS contract? Why is this function in here and since the contract is not renounced can this be removed? We have 3 issues and a token sniffer score of 50/100, its not a good look & the $3.7k daily volume reflects that. 😳
7 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Michael Ray
@cryptojeweler
Are those scores though just based from what "normal" tokens are expected to have? I feel like there is so much utility potential within the token, there almost has to be features not commonly used or accepted within traditional token standards.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jim The Ape
@jimtheape
yikes ... can you link the contract? Ill take a look for you
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
flick the dev 🎩📦
@flick
technically not the owner, but the bridge that can mint, assuming it is a standard implementation of OptimismBridgeableERC20
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ben
@jarmen
3.7k vol is probably a reflection of the facts it's just an auction proxy. And is subject to daily unlocks so buying and holding is a scary action for anyone other than a true fan tired to fractionally accumulate a noun ownership.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
datadanne ↑
@datadanne.eth
Aren't the mintable and owner can change balance-warnings there because it is a bridged L1-token? The bridge contract needs to be able to mint and burn tokens to/from users
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
olli
@olli
Hey @bixbite! The Base contract is a standard OptimismMintableERC20. A bridged token will always be mintable/burnable by a bridge contract. The owner related warnings seems wrong given the contract doesn’t implement Ownable. What service is the screenshot from? https://docs.optimism.io/builders/app-developers/tutorials/standard-bridge-custom-token
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
