Thread by @RobotDefi

Looking back at some of the #rugpulls of the past that have been audited.
This is why it's important to read audits (but interestingly, some audits didn't consider the owner having so much control to be a security risk).

Let's have a look at some...

🧵/1

The first rug we'll discuss is Univ, audited by Solidity Finance.
Notice they say explicitly in the audit summary "Please ensure trust in the team prior to investing as they have substantial control in the ecosystem.
Date: February 24th, 2022."

🧵/2

That seems like a catch-all cover-your-butt statement, but hey, at least they warned everyone.

Then we have MaxAPY, audited by Rugfreecoins. Here they missed the owner's ability to change fees to much higher than 25% (which they did so no one could sell....honeypot).

🧵/3

Arbix was audited by Certik, and they found 12 issues! However, all critical and major issues were resolved.
This did not stop Arbix devs from minting and dumping the token, however.

🧵/4

In the infamous Squid Game rug pull, the audit company Coinscope only found one apparently not serious issue with the contract.

Dangers were not made apparent otherwise.

🧵/5

In the Turtledex rug pull, Techrate didn't seem to find any issues with the contract.
Yet they were able to siphon all liquidity.

🧵/6

Techrate also performed the StableMagnet audit, and yet again they found nearly no issues.
However, devs had exploited a backdoor in the linked libraries and stole funds anyway.

🧵/7

Some of these teams were #KYC'd and #Doxxed as well
Protocol security isn't fool proof, so of course there is no way to guarantee safety every time

It does seem like perhaps we can do better, and hold security firms to a higher standard

Just my random Monday thoughts
/end rant