<username>{{ maskedUsername }}</username><space /><text>just voted for</text><space /><projectButton />

<username>{{ maskedUsername }}</username><space /><text>just voted for</text><space /><projectLogo /><space /><projectName>{{ projectName }}</projectName>

Bug Bounty rewards are grouped by severity and the impact of the vulnerability. Examples and descriptions of the type of vulnerabilities that correspond to each severity level can be found below. The payout amount has a 5 tier structure with separate scalesfor website/apps and smart contracts.

Description of vulnerability and your proof of concept or validation steps

Name

Please input a title

Short description of the vulnerability and the affected asset.

The core team is situated in country(ies) that received low aggregated ratings in terms of international judicial cooperation, criminal justice system, anti-money laundering, and corruption. This contextual data suggests an increased difficulty and complexity in preventing and mitigating fraud.

The core team is situated in country(ies) that received medium aggregated ratings in terms of international judicial cooperation, criminal justice system, anti-money laundering, and corruption. This contextual data suggests a medium level of geographic accountability, thus reducing and mitigating the risk of fraud.

The core team is situated in country(ies) that received the best aggregated ratings in terms of international judicial cooperation, criminal justice system, anti-money laundering, and corruption. This contextual data suggests the highest level of geographic accountability, thus maximizing the risk reduction and mitigation.

Vulnerability Title

Redundant inheritance

Third party dependencies

Missing condition checks

Check effect interaction pattern violated

Incorrect mathematical operations

Unguaranteed token balance

Lack of balance validation

Redundant statements

Centralization risk

Return value not checked

Code Simplify

Update wrong variable

Return incorrect total project

Lack of validation

Use of `SCALER` multiplier

Coding style of function `setFees()`

Lack of `emit`

Missing emit events

Centralization Risk

Typos in the contract

LighthouseProject.sol

LighthouseAuction.sol

LighthouseRegistration.sol

LighthouseBurn.sol

LighthouseNft.sol

LighthousePrefund.sol

LighthouseMint.sol

LighthouseTier.sol

Unknown Imported Source File

Unlocked Compiler Version

Lack of Zero Address Validation

Unused Function 

Unchecked Value of ERC-20 `transfer()` Call

`require` Statement Always Pass

Unused variable

Redundant Check Against NFT

NFTswap

NftSwap.sol

This report has been prepared for Seascape Game  smart contracts, to discover issues and vulnerabilities in the source code of their Smart Contract as well as any contract dependencies that were not part of an officially recognized library. A comprehensive examination has been performed, utilizing Dynamic Analysis, Static Analysis, and Manual Review techniques.

Leaderboards

Due Diligence Tools

Resources

KYC Status