🔎The Satraps Audit

We were asked to proactively participate in the Satraps audit of our project, which we welcomed as an opportunity. We engaged with the team and volunteered information to help them be critical so we can make necessary changes.

Satraps Court: Beta

Scoring system used: SSA v1.0. More details on the scoring system can be found here.

Areas of Improvement

The economic model of the project, which is primarily a token farming/liquidity pool system, lacks a sustainable long-term plan to generate income for the team and investors.

We have made a number of improvements compared to the Songbird launch

• Limited token supply, with a long term token distribution model

• Increased liquidity, as staking requires Liquidity Pool (LP) tokens to be staked

• Staking/FlareDrop rewards by utilizing SFLR liquid staking to pair FRB

• Airdrop mechanism which requires participation in order to receive the remaining rewards

Changes have been made to ensure sufficient income to run operations:

• 10% of fees are sent to the multisig of the core contributors

• Fees from NFT charging are also sent to the multisig

This aligns the incentive of the core contibutors with the community, as only through utlization fees are generated. There is no token allocation for the team. Limited operational costs due to in-house development.

There is no token allocation for the team

The project does not appear to be contributing meaningful value to the network beyond the token farming mechanics.

This is true for the initial version, as the core audience is the Canary Reborn community. New products that will be deployed must contribute to the network one way or another.

Concerns around the centralization of the DAO governance model of the project.

The main concern is the multi-sig wallet which is able to veto proposals. This could in theory allow owners of this wallet to stop any community proposal.

The reason we have implemented this is for security reasons, as malicious proposals could attempt to transfer DAO treasury funds to their own wallet or transfer ownership of contracts to unknown parties

Note that this wallet does not have any ability to pass proposals without a majority vote, similar to any other NFT holder launching a proposal.

Action Plan

The team will rework the contracts to ensure they are fully upgradeable, implementing easy-to-use functions for future modifications.

As mentioned under Q&A, we will launch on Flare with a light version of the DAO contract with limited functionality. We will update the contracts and test the full version of the DAO contract on Songbird before deploying it on Flare. The light DAO version will only have few functions:

• Transfer unallocated FRB to the future DAO contract

• Transfer LP tokens to the future DAO contract

• Transfer ownership of token contract to the future DAO contract

• Transfer ownership airdrop contract to future DAO contract

• Migrate function that executes the above in one transaction

The existing NFT Lending platform tested on Songbird will be reworked and revised, with a new version tested within the next 6 months.

We will prioritize the launch on Flare on the core functionality: Staking & Harvesting. After which we will do the following:

• Launch farm on Songbird for FRB

• Rework & launch DAO contract on Songbird

• Publicly available version of the dApp on Github

• Work on a either an improved version of the NFT lending platform or another product, as voted by the community

The pace of these deployments will depend on the time and resources of the contributors to Canary Reborn. This will most likely take more time than the 6 months mentioned.

The project documentation will be updated to incorporate feedback from the audit, including necessary changes to the contracts and roadmap.

We have extensively updated the documentation, including the Flare launch proposal.

We have extensively updated the documentation, including the Flare launch proposal.