Position's owed fees should allow underflow but it reverts instead, resulting in locked funds

`get_fee_growth_inside` in `tick.rs` should allow for `underflow`/`overflow` but doesn't

Parameter Misordering in Fee Collection Function Causes Denial of Service and Fee Loss

Inadequate Checking of `isIncreasing` when trader adjusts position size

Trading accounts can exceed the maximum number of allowed open positions.

`TSender.huff` and `TSender_NoCheck.huff` contracts will transfer funds to wrong addresses when called with specific calldata.

Soil issuance is computed incorrectly if `twaDeltaB` is negative while `instDeltaB` is positive.

Staking reward accrual in `ZivoeRewards` contract can be blocked.

Function `_cancelAllBids()` does not check if the bid being cancelled is the highest bid

Incorrect allowance check will make calls to VaultZapper user-related functions revert.

Epoch is not increased when settlement is queued.

Gas Limitation for ETH transfers can break compatibility with Smart Contract Wallets.

depositBalanceIntoEigenLayer can be DoS.

Player can mint more fighter NFTs during claim of rewards by leveraging reentrancy on the `claimRewards() function `

Can mint NFT with the desired attributes by reverting transaction

StakedStargateAM._getCurrentReward() fetches incorrect values, affecting rewards calculation.

`CouncilMember._retrieve()` will revert due to improper use of the `_target` variable.

Funds can be lost when changing stream parameters in `CouncilMember` contract.

Holder of `CouncilMember` NFT can DoS the `CouncilMember` contract.

Rewards can be drained because of lack of access control

No incentive to liquidate small positions could result in protocol going underwater

Divergence in the pricing method for collateral within the `calculateMinimumAmountOut()` may result in vaults transitioning into an uncollateralized state after executing swaps.

Wrong Implementation of `LiquidationPool::empty` excludes holder with pending stakes when decreasing a position, resulting in exclusion from asset distribution

Attacker can force reduce `minAmountOut` from vault swaps, making they vulnerable to being sandwiched.

Anyone with TST tokens can monitor the mempool and frontrun mint/burn functions to get EUROs rewards without even staking.

Anyone can pause AuctionHouse in _createAuction

Since buyToken function has no slippage checking, users can get less tokens than expected when they buy tokens directly

CultureIndex.sol#dropTopVotedPiece() - Malicious user can manipulate topVotedPiece to DoS the whole CultureIndex and AuctionHouse

Attacker can force pause the Auction contract.

No slippage protection for Market functions

Attacker can reenter to mint all the collection supply

Auction winner can prevent payments via `safeTransferFrom` callback

Index values selected in `_woundRequestFulfilled()` are not uniformly distributed.

Function WildcatMarketController.setAnnualInterestBips allows for values outside the factory range

Owner can incorrectly pull funds from contests not yet expired

Voters from VotingEscrow can vote infinite times in vote_for_gauge_weights() of GaugeController

DoS of full liquidations are possible by frontrunning the liquidators

High - Funds can be lost if any participant is blacklisted

Attacker can DoS Margin DEX by leaving bad debt

Lack of slippage control can lead to losses during rebalancing.

Attacker can exploit `mintRebalancer` and `rebalance` to unbalance the USSD-DAI pool.

`claimERC20Prize` not compatible with some non-standard compliant tokens

`FootiumClub`'s `safeMint` does not check if the receiving address supports ERC-721 transfers.

anchorTime() will not work properly on Optimism due to use of block.number

function `restructureCapTable()` in Equity.sol not functioning as expected

`BathBuddy` rewards DoS

An attacker can manipulate the preDepositvePrice to steal from other users.

`WstEth` derivative assumes a ~1=1 peg of stETH to ETH

Possible DoS on `unstake()`

In de-peg scenario, forcing full exit from every derivative & immediately re-entering can cause big losses for depositors

Missing derivative limit and deposit availability checks will revert the whole `stake()` function

`slash` calls can be blocked, allowing malicious users to bypass the slashing mechanism.

Interest accrued could be zero for tokens with small amount of decimals

`approve` method can be frontrunned in some situations

Claimable amounts not accumulated correctly in `claimUnlockedCapital` can lead to loss of funds to depositors.

No hard limit on protection buyers can block calls to `accruePremiumAndExpireProtections`

Whitelist bypass can lead to arbitrary freeze of bounty claims.

Bounty claims can be blocked by early refund of NFTs.

Possible scenario for Signature Replay Attack

Buyer on secondary NFT market can lose fund if they buy a NFT that is already used to claim the reward

User may loose rewards if the receipt is minted after quest end time

Use of non-standard compliant ERC20 tokens can lead to uncollateralized loans and wrong repayment values

Loans can be rolled against the will of the lender by frontrunning their call to toggleRoll

Arbitrary transactions possible due to insufficient signature validation

Replay attack (EIP712 signed transaction)

First depositor can break minting of shares

Price will not always be 18 decimals, as expected and outlined in the comments

griefing / blocking / delaying users to withdraw

`LPDA` price can underflow the price due to bad settings and potentially brick the contract