- Hacken
- Audits
- gma-artenis
- [SCA] GMA (Artenis) | Token | Jun2026
Audit name:
[SCA] GMA (Artenis) | Token | Jun2026
Date:
Jun 30, 2026
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the GMA (Artenis) team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
Artenis (ATNS) is a fixed-supply, immutable ERC-20 token combining battle-tested OpenZeppelin foundations with gasless permit approvals .
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for GMA (Artenis) |
| Audited By | Hamza Sajid |
| Approved By | Khrystyna Tkachuk |
| Website | https://www.gmartification.com→ |
| Changelog | 18/06/2026 - Preliminary Report |
| 30/06/2026 - Final Report | |
| Platform | Ethereum |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20, Permit Token |
| Methodology | https://docs.hacken.io/methodologies/smart-contracts→ |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for GMA (Artenis)
- Audited By
- Hamza Sajid
- Approved By
- Khrystyna Tkachuk
- Changelog
- 18/06/2026 - Preliminary Report
- 30/06/2026 - Final Report
- Platform
- Ethereum
- Language
- Solidity
- Tags
- ERC20, Permit Token
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/maioranodesign/artenis-atns→ |
| Final Commit | e7c0fd87d7a36ca811005cd022574e54f6181834 |
| Deployed contract | https://etherscan.io/address/0xc66744C9723863d74Bd432B00FEfC212Df002d22#code→ |
Review Scope
- Final Commit
- e7c0fd87d7a36ca811005cd022574e54f6181834
Audit Summary
The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report
Documentation quality
Basic system description is provided (NatSpec
@title/@devon the contract and constants).Tokenomics (fixed 50M supply, treasury allocation) is conveyed in code but not in standalone docs.
NatSpec is sufficient for this contract.
Code quality
Contract is minimal and built entirely on standard OpenZeppelin v5.4.0 contracts (ERC20, ERC20Permit) with no custom token logic.
Test coverage
Core behavior is inherited from OpenZeppelin's own audited and fully-tested contracts.
Deployment/user-interaction tests and a coverage report are missing.
System Overview
Artenis Token is a non-upgradeable, immutable ERC20 token (symbol: ATNS) built entirely on standard, audited OpenZeppelin v5.4.0 contracts. The contract mints a fixed supply of 50 million tokens to a Safe multisig treasury wallet upon deployment, after which no further tokens can ever be minted or burned. The token contains no administrative roles, owner, pausing, or transfer restrictions all transfers are unrestricted from deployment, and the contract's behavior is permanently fixed once deployed. In addition to standard ERC20 functionality, Artenis implements EIP-2612 (ERC20Permit), enabling gasless, signature-based approvals so holders can authorize allowances off-chain.
Potential Risks
Single-Point Token Distribution: The entire 50,000,000 ATNS supply is minted to a single Safe multisig treasury, concentrating custody of all tokens in one wallet. The security of the supply depends entirely on the multisig's signers and key management.
No Emergency Controls: The contract is immutable with no owner, pause, or admin functions. If an issue is discovered, there is no on-chain mechanism to pause transfers or intervene the contract's behavior is permanently fixed.
No Supply Adjustment Mechanism: The supply is permanently fixed at deployment, with no ability to mint or burn afterward. This prevents inflation but removes any flexibility to correct misallocations or adjust tokenomics in the future.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2026-1787 | Floating And Overly Wide Compiler Version Pragma | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2026-1787 | Inlined Dependencies And Absent Import Statements In Flattened Source | fixed | Observation |
Appendix 1. Definitions
Severities
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. |
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.
Potential Risks
The "Potential Risks" section identifies issues that are not direct security vulnerabilities but could still affect the project’s performance, reliability, or user trust. These risks arise from design choices, architectural decisions, or operational practices that, while not immediately exploitable, may lead to problems under certain conditions. Additionally, potential risks can impact the quality of the audit itself, as they may involve external factors or components beyond the scope of the audit, leading to incomplete assessments or oversight of key areas. This section aims to provide a broader perspective on factors that could affect the project's long-term security, functionality, and the comprehensiveness of the audit findings.
Appendix 2. Scope
The scope of the project includes the following smart contracts from the provided repository:
Scope Details | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/maioranodesign/artenis-atns→ |
| Final Commit | e7c0fd87d7a36ca811005cd022574e54f6181834 |
| Deployed contract | https://etherscan.io/address/0xc66744C9723863d74Bd432B00FEfC212Df002d22#code→ |
| Whitepaper | N/A |
| Requirements | NatSpec |
| Technical Requirements | NatSpec |
Scope Details
- Final Commit
- e7c0fd87d7a36ca811005cd022574e54f6181834
- Whitepaper
- N/A
- Requirements
- NatSpec
- Technical Requirements
- NatSpec
Assets in Scope
Appendix 3. Additional Valuables
Additional Recommendations
The smart contracts in the scope of this audit could benefit from the introduction of automatic emergency actions for critical activities, such as unauthorized operations like ownership changes or proxy upgrades, as well as unexpected fund manipulations, including large withdrawals or minting events. Adding such mechanisms would enable the protocol to react automatically to unusual activity, ensuring that the contract remains secure and functions as intended.
To improve functionality, these emergency actions could be designed to trigger under specific conditions, such as:
Detecting changes to ownership or critical permissions.
Monitoring large or unexpected transactions and minting events.
Pausing operations when irregularities are identified.
These enhancements would provide an added layer of security, making the contract more robust and better equipped to handle unexpected situations while maintaining smooth operations.
Frameworks and Methodologies
This security assessment was conducted in alignment with recognised penetration testing standards, methodologies and guidelines, including the NIST SP 800-115 – Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment →, and the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) →, These assets provide a structured foundation for planning, executing, and documenting technical evaluations such as vulnerability assessments, exploitation activities, and security code reviews. Hacken’s internal penetration testing methodology extends these principles to Web2 and Web3 environments to ensure consistency, repeatability, and verifiable outcomes.