TRUST Summit | Nov 3, 2025 | NYCWhere decision-makers define the next chapter of secure blockchain adoption.
Learn more

Ponder

Audit name:

[SCA] Ponder | ERC20 | May2024

Date:

May 23, 2024

Table of Content

→Introduction
→Audit Summary
→Document Information
→System Overview
→Executive Summary
→Risks
→Findings
→Appendix 1. Severity Definitions
→Appendix 2. Scope
→Disclaimer

Want a comprehensive audit report like this?

Introduction

We express our gratitude to the Ponder team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.

Ponder is an ERC20 token that mints the total supply to the platform owner.

titlecontent
PlatformEVM
LanguageSolidity
TagsERC20 token
Timeline03/05/2024- 06/05/2024
Methodologyhttps://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→

    Review Scope

    Repositoryhttps://github.com/ponder-one/PNDR-Token→
    Commit023f94f45ae2298bef6efe40e94e9152932d665e

    Audit Summary

    Total10/10
    Security Score

    10/10

    Test Coverage

    0%

    Code Quality Score

    10/10

    Documentation Quality Score

    10/10

    4Total Findings
    4Resolved
    0Accepted
    0Mitigated

    The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report

    Document Information

    This report may contain confidential information about IT systems and the intellectual property of the Customer, as well as information about potential vulnerabilities and methods of their exploitation.

    The report can be disclosed publicly after prior consent by another Party. Any subsequent publication of this report shall be without mandatory consent.

    Document

    NameSmart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Ponder
    Audited BySeher Saylik
    Approved ByAtaberk Yavuzer
    Websitehttps://ponder.one/→
    Changelog06/05/2024 - Preliminary Report
    07/05/2024 - Final Report

    • Document

      Name
      Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Ponder
      Audited By
      Seher Saylik
      Approved By
      Ataberk Yavuzer
      Website
      https://ponder.one/→
      Changelog
      06/05/2024 - Preliminary Report
      07/05/2024 - Final Report

    System Overview

    Ponder, an ERC20 token named "Ponder" (PNDR) with permit functionality, initializing an initial supply of 100,000,000 tokens to the deployer's address.

    Ponder  — a simple ERC-20 token that mints all the supply to a deployer. Additional minting is not allowed.

    It has the following attributes:

    • Name: Ponder

    • Symbol: PNDR

    • Decimals: 18

    • Total supply: 100m tokens.

    Privileged roles

    • There is no privileged role assigned in the system.

    Executive Summary

    Documentation quality

    The total Documentation quality score is 10 out of 10.

    • Tokenomics is provided.

    Code quality

    The total Code quality score is 10 out of 10.

    • The development environment is not configured.

    • The code violates some best practices.

    Test coverage

    Code coverage of the project is 0% (branch coverage), with a mutation score of 0%.

    • The tests for the audited contract are not provided,

    Security score

    Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, and 0 low severity issues. Out of these, 0 issues have been addressed and resolved, leading to a security score of 10 out of 10.

    All identified issues are detailed in the “Findings” section of this report.

    Summary

    The comprehensive audit of the customer's smart contract yields an overall score of 10. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.

    Scoring Methodologyarrow right

    Risks

    Centralized Minting to a Single Address: The project concentrates minting tokens in a single address, raising the risk of fund mismanagement or theft, especially if key storage security is compromised.

    Absence of a Token Burn Mechanism: The project lacks a mechanism to burn tokens, facing challenges in managing supply dynamically, affecting the token's value stability and inflation control.

    Findings

    Code
    ―
    Title
    Status
    Severity
    F-2024-2164Constructor Can Be Marked As Payable
    fixed

    Observation
    F-2024-2163Floating Pragma
    fixed

    Observation
    F-2024-2162Solidity Version 0.8.20 Might Not Work On All Chains Due to PUSH0
    fixed

    Observation
    F-2024-2161Unused Parameter
    fixed

    Observation
    1-4 of 4 findings

    Identify vulnerabilities in your smart contracts.

    Appendix 1. Severity Definitions

    When auditing smart contracts, Hacken is using a risk-based approach that considers Likelihood, Impact, Exploitability and Complexity metrics to evaluate findings and score severities.

    Reference on how risk scoring is done is available through the repository in our Github organization:

    Severity

    Description

    Critical
    		Critical vulnerabilities are usually straightforward to exploit and can lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation.

    High
    		High vulnerabilities are usually harder to exploit, requiring specific conditions, or have a more limited scope, but can still lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation.

    Medium
    		Medium vulnerabilities are usually limited to state manipulations and, in most cases, cannot lead to asset loss. Contradictions and requirements violations. Major deviations from best practices are also in this category.

    Low
    		Major deviations from best practices or major Gas inefficiency. These issues will not have a significant impact on code execution, do not affect security score but can affect code quality score.

    • Severity

      Critical

      Description

      Critical vulnerabilities are usually straightforward to exploit and can lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation.

      Severity

      High

      Description

      High vulnerabilities are usually harder to exploit, requiring specific conditions, or have a more limited scope, but can still lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation.

      Severity

      Medium

      Description

      Medium vulnerabilities are usually limited to state manipulations and, in most cases, cannot lead to asset loss. Contradictions and requirements violations. Major deviations from best practices are also in this category.

      Severity

      Low

      Description

      Major deviations from best practices or major Gas inefficiency. These issues will not have a significant impact on code execution, do not affect security score but can affect code quality score.

    Appendix 2. Scope

    The scope of the project includes the following smart contracts from the provided repository:

    Scope Details

    Repositoryhttps://github.com/ponder-one/PNDR-Token→
    Commit023f94f45ae2298bef6efe40e94e9152932d665e
    WhitepaperN/a
    Requirementshttps://docsend.com/view/6sad7vhy5uymudeu→
    Technical Requirementshttps://github.com/hknio/PNDR-Token-0f9a6ebea81538e46c1e9cb7aa01→

    Contracts in Scope

    contracts
    Ponder.sol - contracts › Ponder.sol

    Disclaimer