Reach out for an audit or to learn more about Macro
or Message on Telegram

Savea A-2

Security Audit

July 9, 2025

Version 1.0.0

Presented by 0xMacro

Table of Contents

Introduction

This document includes the results of the security audit for Savea's smart contract code as found in the section titled ‘Source Code’. The security audit was performed by the Macro security team from July 7th to July 8th, 2025.

Note: The scope of the audit was limited to the changes made to the contracts since the last audit. All non-addressed issues found in the Savea A-1 audit are still valid and are expected to be addressed in the future project updates.

The purpose of this audit is to review the source code of certain Savea Solidity contracts, and provide feedback on the design, architecture, and quality of the source code with an emphasis on validating the correctness and security of the software in its entirety.

Disclaimer: While Macro’s review is comprehensive and has surfaced some changes that should be made to the source code, this audit should not solely be relied upon for security, as no single audit is guaranteed to catch all possible bugs.

Overall Assessment

The following is an aggregation of issues found by the Macro Audit team:

Severity Count Acknowledged Won't Do Addressed
Code Quality 2 - - 2

Savea was quick to respond to these issues.

Specification

Our understanding of the specification was based on the following sources:

Source Code

The following source code was reviewed during the audit:

Specifically, we audited the following contracts within this repository:

Source Code SHA256
contracts/Management.sol

5c78efcaa788b5ef2eda78b743cee308cf6c55bb9b6df8bb0426cd3c47aa3ccd

contracts/SaveaToken.sol

0d5ac9b87243f05cd2f0fd72cb147d882abbe5faaba3c7ba33615fa5c479f7db

contracts/interfaces/ISaveaToken.sol

981d472da4be55714a39ca3f3a93e432161983e2c73e23dc93ce939f9deffd97

contracts/libraries/Errors.sol

73c249349783d661337c1057271d8139507f64e7a4da03f19a4f7b918fc19ca5

Note: This document contains an audit solely of the Solidity contracts listed above. Specifically, the audit pertains only to the contracts themselves, and does not pertain to any other programs or scripts, including deployment scripts.

Issue Descriptions and Recommendations

Click on an issue to jump to it, or scroll down to see them all.

Security Level Reference

We quantify issues in three parts:

  1. The high/medium/low/spec-breaking impact of the issue:
    • How bad things can get (for a vulnerability)
    • The significance of an improvement (for a code quality issue)
    • The amount of gas saved (for a gas optimization)
  2. The high/medium/low likelihood of the issue:
    • How likely is the issue to occur (for a vulnerability)
  3. The overall critical/high/medium/low severity of the issue.

This third part – the severity level – is a summary of how much consideration the client should give to fixing the issue. We assign severity according to the table of guidelines below:

Severity Description
(C-x)
Critical

We recommend the client must fix the issue, no matter what, because not fixing would mean significant funds/assets WILL be lost.

(H-x)
High

We recommend the client must address the issue, no matter what, because not fixing would be very bad, or some funds/assets will be lost, or the code’s behavior is against the provided spec.

(M-x)
Medium

We recommend the client to seriously consider fixing the issue, as the implications of not fixing the issue are severe enough to impact the project significantly, albiet not in an existential manner.

(L-x)
Low

The risk is small, unlikely, or may not relevant to the project in a meaningful way.

Whether or not the project wants to develop a fix is up to the goals and needs of the project.

(Q-x)
Code Quality

The issue identified does not pose any obvious risk, but fixing could improve overall code quality, on-chain composability, developer ergonomics, or even certain aspects of protocol design.

(I-x)
Informational

Warnings and things to keep in mind when operating the protocol. No immediate action required.

(G-x)
Gas Optimizations

The presented optimization suggestion would save an amount of gas significant enough, in our opinion, to be worth the development cost of implementing it.

Issue Details

Q-1

Incorrect natspec for _authorizeUpgrade()

Topic
Best practices
Status
Quality Impact
Low

In the Management contract, natspec comment indicates that caller with UPGRADER_ROLE is the expected caller and only actor that will be authorized to perform _authorizeUpgrade() call.

/// @dev Allows only the UPGRADER_ROLE to upgrade the contract
function _authorizeUpgrade(address newImplementation) internal override onlyOwner {}

However, Management contract does not implement role based access control, and in fact only the contract owner is the actor who can authorize upgrade.

Consider updating natspec comment to align with the implementation, or update implementation to be in line with the expressed intent in the natspec documentation.

Q-2

Use named mapping arguments

Topic
Best practices
Status
Quality Impact
Low

In the Management contract, state of the contract is represent by the ManagementStorage struct

/// @custom:storage-location erc7201:savea.storage.Management
struct ManagementStorage {
    /// @notice Mapping to store settings
    mapping(uint256 => uint256) settings;
    /// @notice Mapping to store supported NFT contracts
    mapping(address => bool) supportedNFTContracts;
    /// @notice Mapping to store paidAt made by wallets
    mapping(address => uint256) paidAt;
    /// @notice Mapping to store redemptions made by wallets
    mapping(address => mapping(uint256 => DataTypes.Redemption)) redemptions;
    ...
}

Consider using named mapping arguments for better code readability.

Disclaimer

Macro makes no warranties, either express, implied, statutory, or otherwise, with respect to the services or deliverables provided in this report, and Macro specifically disclaims all implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement and those arising from a course of dealing, usage or trade with respect thereto, and all such warranties are hereby excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Macro will not be liable for any lost profits, business, contracts, revenue, goodwill, production, anticipated savings, loss of data, or costs of procurement of substitute goods or services or for any claim or demand by any other party. In no event will Macro be liable for consequential, incidental, special, indirect, or exemplary damages arising out of this agreement or any work statement, however caused and (to the fullest extent permitted by law) under any theory of liability (including negligence), even if Macro has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

The scope of this report and review is limited to a review of only the code presented by the Savea team and only the source code Macro notes as being within the scope of Macro’s review within this report. This report does not include an audit of the deployment scripts used to deploy the Solidity contracts in the repository corresponding to this audit. Specifically, for the avoidance of doubt, this report does not constitute investment advice, is not intended to be relied upon as investment advice, is not an endorsement of this project or team, and it is not a guarantee as to the absolute security of the project. In this report you may through hypertext or other computer links, gain access to websites operated by persons other than Macro. Such hyperlinks are provided for your reference and convenience only, and are the exclusive responsibility of such websites’ owners. You agree that Macro is not responsible for the content or operation of such websites, and that Macro shall have no liability to your or any other person or entity for the use of third party websites. Macro assumes no responsibility for the use of third party software and shall have no liability whatsoever to any person or entity for the accuracy or completeness of any outcome generated by such software.