Root docs
Repository viewer
Legacy docs parity surface
Back to repository viewer
Repository document

Judge Technical Audit Note

judge-technical-audit.md

Boundary

This route preserves legacy markdown access inside the Next.js surface. The raw repository file remains authoritative.

Open raw file

Judge Technical Audit Note

What a technical judge should verify first

  1. The program is live on devnet.
  2. Proposal state is fetched from real program accounts.
  3. The lifecycle is enforced on-chain, not simulated in the UI.
  4. Execution is guarded by both state transitions and account validation.

Source-of-truth files

  • On-chain logic: programs/private-dao/src/lib.rs
  • End-to-end lifecycle: tests/full-flow-test.ts
  • Demo walkthrough: tests/demo.ts
  • Core behavior tests: tests/private-dao.ts
  • Live proof note: docs/live-proof.md
  • Dedicated V3 proof note: docs/test-wallet-live-proof-v3.generated.md
  • V3 hardening notes: docs/governance-hardening-v3.md, docs/settlement-hardening-v3.md
  • Live frontend: repo root Next.js export
  • Android-native counterpart: apps/android-native/

Verified strengths

Lifecycle correctness

  • proposal creation exists on-chain
  • commit and reveal are separate enforced phases
  • finalize is phase-gated
  • execute is timelock-gated
  • cancel and veto are explicit authority surfaces

Treasury safety

  • SendSol checks recipient configuration
  • SendToken checks mint alignment and token-account wiring
  • execution is tied to proposal state and treasury PDA semantics

Voting integrity

  • commit binding uses sha256(vote || salt || proposal_pubkey || voter_pubkey)
  • vote weight is snapshotted at commit time
  • reveal must match the stored commitment
  • delegated paths are proposal-scoped, not generic
  • direct/delegated overlap is rejected on-chain and mirrored in operator-facing surfaces
  • additive V3 governance proof demonstrates token-supply quorum snapshots and a dedicated reveal rebate vault without reinterpreting legacy proposals

Product proof surface

  • live frontend exposes real proposal state
  • Proof Center includes real transaction links
  • Android-native app mirrors the same devnet program and lifecycle semantics

Remaining technical deductions a judge could make

These are the honest limits today:

  • the repository is governance-strong but not yet a full Ranger vault strategy implementation
  • devnet proof exists, but mainnet deployment is not claimed here
  • additive V3 hardening is Devnet-proven, but still not presented as a mainnet custody claim
  • strategy alpha, APY, and vault performance require a strategy layer in addition to this repository
  • Android build verification requires a full Android SDK environment outside this shell

Why this still scores highly

The important distinction is that the project is not faking product depth:

  • the contract is real
  • the lifecycle is real
  • execution is real
  • the proof surface is real

That matters more to a technical judge than inflated claims.