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

Superstate A-10

Security Audit

November 11th, 2025

Version 1.0.0

Presented by 0xMacro

Table of Contents

Introduction

This document includes the results of the security audit for Superstate's smart contract code as found in the section titled ‘Source Code’. The security audit was performed by the Macro security team from October 28th to October 31st, 2025.

The purpose of this audit is to review the source code of certain Superstate 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
Low 3 2 - 1
Code Quality 4 - - 4
Informational 2 - - -

Superstate 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:

Source Code SHA256
evm/protocol/dip/src/Dip.sol

b10137be9821247137b1daaa99a86ece6d1f362a61d9cf31b4380057a25245fd

evm/protocol/token/src/Dippable.sol

dc334311849013776bce616526c4c88cc2fa1c44c2f773cbc18bcff12f6406af

evm/protocol/token/src/EquityToken.sol

97f1afdd0e338db3802b5dd69964eb2f85a6950c61eba6aa6aec206e4532dca3

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

L-1

Market config updates can be performed for Active market

Topic
Spec
Status
Acknowledged
Impact
Low
Likelihood
High

In the Dip.sol contract, important state changes through config update performed by the admin, may change or break core invariants of the corresponding market in Active state. For example, by changing unexpectedly discount rate buyers may receive less than the anticipated assets in return. Also by changing totalPaymentTarget to be less than the totalPaymentReceived no additional purchases will be possible through the buyTheDip() function, but market will remain in Active state.

Remediations to consider

  • Consider restricing configuration updates only to Paused markets, or
  • Consider adding timelock for important configuration state changes.
Response by Superstate

Expected behavior, acknowledged. Changes will be announced ahead of time, and validation/scheduling will be decided and set off-chain

L-2

Oracle latency tolerance potentially too restrictive

Topic
Spec
Status
Acknowledged
Impact
Low
Likelihood
High

In the Dip.sol, oracle latency tolerance is configured through the uint8 config variable oracleLatencyToleranceInSeconds, which defines latency tolerance in seconds resulting in a valid range of 1-255 seconds (max ~4 minutes).

This range is potentially too restrictive operationally for some of the price feeds and this may cause unnecessary reverts. Consider using uint32 or uint64 instead.

Response by Superstate

Non-issue, validation and proper config will be decided and set off-chain.

L-3

Mismatch in payment tokens decimals allows zero payment mints

Topic
Spec
Status
Impact
Low
Likelihood
Low

In the Dip.sol contract, in specific situation when payment token decimals value is smaller than the value of the constant PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS set during contract deployment, contract functionality may malfunction. This will cause instrument tokens to be minted in exchange for 0 payment amount due to the loss of precision error in calculations.

In the Dip.sol contract, _calculateOutput() is responsible for performing the most important calculations related to the issuance of instrument assets under discounted rates.

uint8 instrumentDecimals = uint8(IERC20Metadata(address(market.instrument)).decimals());
instrumentAmount = _calculateInstrumentAmount(
    normPaymentAmount, PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS, discountedPrice, priceDecimals, instrumentDecimals
);
actualPaymentAmount = changeDecimals(normPaymentAmount, PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS, paymentDecimals);

In the case, when payment token decimals is smaller than the PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS normalizedPaymentAmount will get truncated during conversion from PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS to the actual payment token decimals. This will cause actualPaymentAmount to have smaller value than expected and in specific cases to be 0.

Since in the Dippable.sol, return value of actualPaymentAmount is used to determine how much to charge buyer for the issued amount of instrument, it will result in underpayment in this scenario.

function buyTheDip(bytes32 marketId, uint256 paymentAmount, uint256 minOutAmount, IERC20 paymentToken)
    external
    virtual
{
        ...
    
    // Call DIP contract with buyer address and payment token
    // DIP validates market state, pricing, and returns actual amounts
    (uint256 actualPaymentAmount, uint256 instrumentAmount, address paymentRecipient) =
        IDip(dip).buyTheDip(marketId, msg.sender, paymentAmount, paymentToken);

    // Validate slippage protection
    if (instrumentAmount < minOutAmount) revert InsufficientOutput(instrumentAmount, minOutAmount);

    // Transfer payment from buyer to recipient
    paymentToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, paymentRecipient, actualPaymentAmount);

    // Mint instrument tokens to buyer
    _mint(msg.sender, instrumentAmount);

    // Note: DIP contract emits the Purchase event for tracking
}

Remediations to consider

  • Add validation that payment token cannot have decimals smaller than the PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS value, or
  • Implement rounding up in the case when normalizedPaymentAmount is not divisible by the scaling factor.
Q-1

Multiple versions of OpenZeppelin libraries present

Topic
Best practices
Status
Quality Impact
Low

Within the project scope multiple versions of OpenZeppelin are used. In the case of Dip.sol contract 2 versions of OpenZeppelin are used within the same contract. (both v5.0.2 and v5.1.0).

In EquityToken.sol contract, OZ’s v4 SafeERC20 library is used, while in in Dippable.sol OZ’s v5 is used.

Consider updating implementation across the project in scope to use a single OZ library version.

Q-2

Missing public/external methods in IDip.sol interface

Topic
Best practices
Status
Quality Impact
Low

In the Dip.sol following public methods are present which are not feature in the IDip.sol interface.

// setters
setPriceOracle(address)
initialize(address)
// Public getters (auto-generated)
priceOracle()
markets(bytes32)
// public constants
BASIS_POINTS()
PRICE_CLAMP_DECIMALS()
PAYMENT_TOKEN_DECIMALS()

Consider adding them to the IDip.sol.

Q-3

Unnecessary code can be removed

Topic
Best practices
Status
Quality Impact
Low

In the EquityToken.sol

  • The following import seems unused and can be removed

    import {IERC20 as IERC20V5} from "openzeppelin-contracts-v5.0.2/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
    

In the Dip.sol

  • DiscountedPriceZero error is unreachable. Given price > 0 and discountRate < 10000, both factors price and BASIS_POINTS - discountRate are non zero, as a result mulDivUp() won’t yield zero.

    uint256 price = uint256(int256(pythPrice.price)); // Safe: already validated price > 0
    ...
    discountedPrice = FixedPointMathLib.mulDivUp(price, BASIS_POINTS - market.discountRate, BASIS_POINTS);
    if (discountedPrice == 0) revert DiscountedPriceZero();
    

    Consider removing this unnecessary code.

Q-4

Improve inline project documentation

Topic
Best practices
Status
Quality Impact
Low

In the Dip.sol

  • createMarket() docs claim oracle address validation, but implementation doesn’t ensure a non-zero priceOracle

    • Docs say it validates “paymentToken, instrument, oracle all non-zero”, in practice only oraclePriceFeedId is checked and priceOracle is global (could be zero unless set via setPriceOracle).
    • Either check priceOracle != address(0) in createMarket or update NatSpec to clarify requirement to set it beforehand.
  • Integration doc in header omits the buyer parameter Dip.sol Lines 33-41

    // Call buyTheDip(marketId, paymentAmount, paymentToken) - only callable by active market's instrument
    function buyTheDip(bytes32 marketId, address buyer, uint256 paymentAmount, IERC20 paymentToken)
    

    Update docs to include buyer.

  • Comment about clearing currentMarketForInstrument, lists only Paused/Cancelled, but code also clears on Closed

    *      Leaving Active State:
    *      - Clears currentMarketForInstrument[instrument] = bytes32(0)
    *      - Allows other markets for same instrument to become active
    *      - Applies to: Active → Paused, Active → Cancelled       <=== here
    *
    *      Entering Active State:
    *      - Validates no other market is currently active (AlreadyCurrentMarket)
    *      - Sets currentMarketForInstrument[instrument] = marketId
    *      - Applies to: Initialized → Active, Paused → Active
    

    Docs should include Active → Closed.

  • calculateOutput() natspec refers to non existing _calculateOutputNormalized() function.

  • natspec for markets variable incorrectly refers to 12 fields of Market struct, while it actually has 14 fields

    /// @dev Auto-generates getter that returns all 12 fields as tuple
    

In the Dippable.sol

  • In the natspec for buyTheDip() function, consider clarifying that payment transfer is performed by the instrument, not DIP.

    /**
         * @notice Purchases tokens through a DIP market with oracle-based discounted pricing
         * @dev Validates inputs, processes payment through DIP contract, and mints tokens to buyer
         * @param marketId The DIP market identifier
         * @param paymentAmount The amount of payment token to spend
         * @param minOutAmount The minimum amount of tokens to receive (slippage protection)
         * @param paymentToken The token to use for payment (must match market's payment token)
         */
    
  • The must expression in the following statement is misleading

    3. _requireNotAccountingPaused() must be implemented by the inheriting contract
    

    Since, this function has a default empty body, inheritors are not forced to override it. In EquityToken it is overridden correctly, but other inheritors could omit it and bypass the pause check. Consider updating must to should, or remove empty function body to require inheritors to implement it.

In the EquityToken.sol

  • There is a reference to undefined function bridgeToBookEntry() in the natspec docs for adminBurn().
  • Consider clarifying that payment transfer is performed by the instrument, not DIP.
I-1

Contract owner has extensive privileges

Topic
Trust model
Impact
Informational
  • Admin can mint() / bulkMint() / burn() tokens

    Contract owner may mint() / bulkMint() / burn() any tokens and circumvent buyTheDip() execution flow.

  • Admin can hot-swap DIP contract

    Dippable.setDipContract() is owner-only but has no delay/guard. This is an admin risk; consider using a timelock.

I-2

Only regular ERC20 tokens supported

Topic
ERC20 compability
Impact
Informational

The contracts in the project’s scope do not support fee-on-transfer payment tokens.

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 Superstate 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.