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
3 reactions
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
david
@davidbr
^ this
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
Wish there was something we could do about it though because those issues & the token sniffer trust score will deff hurt the token growth in the long run.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
This is the standard OptimismMintableErc20 contract recommended by Optimism for use with their native bridge. Every ERC-20 using this contract will show the warning (burn/mint or lock/mint).
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
I think it would be beneficial for TokenSniffer / DexScreener to drill down a little more into the contracts & have a separate category for these use cases, because right now from normie optics it looks like an untrustworthy token - since it only has a 50% score, when in reality it should be higher 🤓
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
datadanne ↑
@datadanne.eth
Tbh I don't think they're bad given that TS/DS are focused on token trading & the warnings are fair for traders since the total supply isn't fixed. Would be even better if they showed how the token works but that would require them to manually review & I think those warnings are automated from contract analysis
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
