genesis: accounts & txs #303
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (2)networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-5ce9d2210fb8c25750766211efa6479f20e7f224.json (2)
The commission rate (0.1) is now properly configured to be less than the max_rate (0.2), which resolves the previous issue.
Add missing delegator address The delegator_address field is empty, which is required for creating a validator. Based on the AI summary, this should match the account address from genesis.json. Apply this fix: - "delegator_address":""
+ "delegator_address":"eve1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dzsptfr7"Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json (1)
1-1: Consider using a more professional validator monikerThe moniker "lol" appears unprofessional for a validator node. Consider using a more descriptive and professional name that reflects your validator's identity or purpose.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json(4 hunks)networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json (1)
1-1: Verify the validator's public key exposure
The static analysis tool detected a potential API key exposure. While this is likely a false positive (as validator public keys are meant to be public), please ensure you're not accidentally exposing any private keys or sensitive information.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the keys in the gentx file.
Let me check the content of another gentx file to compare the key formats.
No sensitive information exposed in the validator gentx file
After analyzing both gentx files in the testnet directory, I can confirm this is a false positive. The file contains only public information that is standard for Cosmos validator gentx files:
- The ed25519 public key format is consistent across validators
- No private keys or sensitive credentials are exposed
- The file follows the standard Cosmos validator gentx structure with expected fields like commission rates, pubkeys, and signatures
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify if the key is a standard ed25519 public key format
echo "KvRZdsJqIckq7eqZDZwejabRtqGuaClVAa2zXsjB9Zk=" | base64 -d | xxd -p | wc -c
# Expected output: 32 (bytes for ed25519 public key)
Length of output: 273
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar gentx files to compare the key format
rg -l "cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey" networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/
# Check if there are any private keys accidentally committed
rg -i "private|secret" networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/
Length of output: 287
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Compare the content of both gentx files
cat networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-856d266156a8daa399a74bf9c9e387d53054a3dc.json
# Also check if these files are part of standard testnet setup
rg -l "gentx" networks/testnets/raspi/README.md
Length of output: 1343
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json (3)
28-34: Verify account sequence and numbering
The new account is correctly configured with:
- account_number: "1"
- sequence: "0"
This follows the expected sequence after the existing account (number "0").
47-55: Verify staking amount consistency
The account balance (100000000000000 ueve) aligns with the validator's staking amount (10000000000000 ueve) in the gentx file, leaving sufficient tokens for future operations.
47-55: Verify token supply calculations
The changes show consistent token accounting:
- New account balance: 100000000000000 ueve
- Total supply increased by the same amount to 200000000000000 ueve
- Matches the existing account's balance
The mathematical consistency is maintained between balances and total supply.
Also applies to: 69-69
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the balances since paste and bc commands are not available. I'll use jq to sum the balances directly.
Token supply calculations are verified and correct
The verification confirms:
- Total supply (200000000000000 ueve) exactly matches the sum of all balances
- Two accounts with 100000000000000 ueve each:
- eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy
- eve16hpk4083nxajqhuc3rh9lvxpw6rz8z60ra3sem
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify total supply matches sum of balances
total_balance=$(cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq -r '.app_state.bank.balances[].coins[] | select(.denom == "ueve") | .amount' | paste -sd+ - | bc)
total_supply=$(cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq -r '.app_state.bank.supply[] | select(.denom == "ueve") | .amount')
echo "Total balance: $total_balance"
echo "Total supply: $total_supply"
Length of output: 612
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify total supply matches sum of balances using jq's built-in sum
total_balance=$(cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq '[.app_state.bank.balances[].coins[] | select(.denom == "ueve") | .amount | tonumber] | add')
total_supply=$(cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq -r '.app_state.bank.supply[] | select(.denom == "ueve") | .amount')
echo "Total balance: $total_balance"
echo "Total supply: $total_supply"
# Also show individual balances for verification
echo -e "\nIndividual balances:"
cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq -r '.app_state.bank.balances[] | "\(.address): \(.coins[] | select(.denom == "ueve") | .amount)"'
Length of output: 785
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"lol","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazdxjj9r","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"KvRZdsJqIckq7eqZDZwejabRtqGuaClVAa2zXsjB9Zk="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A/TFoIoCHY57GSzKLKRfq2XwbNujwGmvzXacyIAia4Ab"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["5JOyVCB6br30KDW+uIZaV2pgqFlR+fC5425F9NwUQPwEDpwEtUHYRRBIEOn+BXzDSLx767y2wnL3niLheiPekA=="]} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Security concerns in validator configuration
Several security-related issues need to be addressed:
- Empty delegator_address field
- Missing security contact information
- Empty website and identity fields
Consider providing this information to enhance transparency and security of your validator.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
Critical: Invalid commission rate configuration
The commission rate (0.420699) exceeds the maximum rate (0.200000), which will cause the transaction to fail. The commission rate must be less than or equal to the maximum rate.
-"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000"
+"rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"lol","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazdxjj9r","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"KvRZdsJqIckq7eqZDZwejabRtqGuaClVAa2zXsjB9Zk="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A/TFoIoCHY57GSzKLKRfq2XwbNujwGmvzXacyIAia4Ab"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["5JOyVCB6br30KDW+uIZaV2pgqFlR+fC5425F9NwUQPwEDpwEtUHYRRBIEOn+BXzDSLx767y2wnL3niLheiPekA=="]} | |
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"lol","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazdxjj9r","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"KvRZdsJqIckq7eqZDZwejabRtqGuaClVAa2zXsjB9Zk="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A/TFoIoCHY57GSzKLKRfq2XwbNujwGmvzXacyIAia4Ab"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["5JOyVCB6br30KDW+uIZaV2pgqFlR+fC5425F9NwUQPwEDpwEtUHYRRBIEOn+BXzDSLx767y2wnL3niLheiPekA=="]} |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"lol","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazdxjj9r","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"KvRZdsJqIckq7eqZDZwejabRtqGuaClVAa2zXsjB9Zk="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A/TFoIoCHY57GSzKLKRfq2XwbNujwGmvzXacyIAia4Ab"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["5JOyVCB6br30KDW+uIZaV2pgqFlR+fC5425F9NwUQPwEDpwEtUHYRRBIEOn+BXzDSLx767y2wnL3niLheiPekA=="]} | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / devskim
A token or key was found in source code. If this represents a secret, it should be moved somewhere else. Error test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-7fd5c2ff19fae9b881291d311d06a420018a0aba.json (1)
1-1: Consider adjusting validator economic parametersThe current configuration has some concerning economic parameters:
- Minimum self delegation of "1" is extremely low and could be seen as a red flag by delegators
- Maximum commission rate of 20% is relatively low for long-term sustainability
- The precise commission rate of 6.942% seems arbitrary
Consider:
- Increasing minimum self delegation to show more skin in the game
- Setting a more standard maximum commission rate (e.g., 25-30%)
- Using a more conventional commission rate (e.g., 5% or 10%)
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🪛 checkov (3.2.312)
[HIGH] 1-2: IBM Cloud IAM Key
(CKV_SECRET_7)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json(4 hunks)networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-7fd5c2ff19fae9b881291d311d06a420018a0aba.json(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-7fd5c2ff19fae9b881291d311d06a420018a0aba.json
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🪛 checkov (3.2.312)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-7fd5c2ff19fae9b881291d311d06a420018a0aba.json
[HIGH] 1-2: IBM Cloud IAM Key
(CKV_SECRET_7)
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"vladimirtrifonov","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.069420000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach5vet82","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"NpFYcaTifPwiYVaUC6xCa9fDCpp2qbc1I2hg7m4PKmo="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"Ato5x5j4N2ZohrVFlhuTMVmnxUdWMqB3STBV3QhOhTgR"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["Q+YODL55yAigOjAE1ShBEw0F79yPaeSOKaB9pe5cdXBDHBlSzkr9NjUyrKN+mapX2crXz8WbqkHy1Oisr3O+MA=="]} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix critical configuration issues in validator setup
There are several critical issues in the validator configuration:
- The memo contains a private IP address (192.168.0.82) which won't be accessible by other nodes
- The delegator_address field is empty, which will cause transaction failure
Please update the configuration with:
- A public IP address or DNS name for your validator node
- Your delegator address that will be used for the initial delegation
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🪛 checkov (3.2.312)
[HIGH] 1-2: IBM Cloud IAM Key
(CKV_SECRET_7)
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
The delegation amount is significantly higher than the recommended amount
The gentx amount of 10,000,000,000,000 ueve (10M EVE) is much higher than the recommended amount from the genesis instructions, which specifies using 1,000,000 ueve for self-delegation. Other gentx files show the same high amount, but this appears to be incorrect as:
- Genesis instructions explicitly state to fund accounts with 1,000,000,000 ueve and use 1,000,000 ueve for self-delegation
- The total supply shown in genesis is 200,000,000,000,000 ueve, making this delegation amount (10M EVE) too large for a single validator
Please adjust your delegation amount to 1,000,000 ueve as specified in the genesis instructions.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the delegation amount against network parameters
The delegation amount of 10,000,000,000,000 ueve needs verification against network parameters to ensure it doesn't exceed maximum allowed stake or total supply.
Let me gather more information about the network parameters and other gentx files to make a complete assessment.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check genesis file for total supply and other validator's delegation amounts
# Find and check genesis.json file
fd -t f "genesis.json" -x cat {} | jq -r '.app_state.bank.supply[] | select(.denom=="ueve") | .amount'
# Check other gentx files for delegation amounts
fd -t f "gentx-*.json" -x jq -r '.body.messages[0].value.amount' {}
Length of output: 226
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check all gentx files in the directory for their delegation amounts
find . -name "gentx-*.json" -exec cat {} \; | jq -r '.body.messages[0].value.amount'
# Check if there are any network parameter files that might define staking limits
fd -t f "config.toml|app.toml|params.toml" --exec cat {}
# Look for any documentation files that might contain network parameters
fd -t f "README.md|NETWORK.md|PARAMETERS.md" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 5179
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🪛 checkov (3.2.312)
[HIGH] 1-2: IBM Cloud IAM Key
(CKV_SECRET_7)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json (2)
Line range hint
1-414: Consider separating testnet and mainnet configurationsSince this is a testnet configuration (chain_id: "eve-1000-testnet"), consider:
- Documenting that these are testnet-specific allocations
- Creating a separate template for mainnet genesis with appropriate supply and distribution
- Adding validation checks to prevent testnet configurations from being used in production
Initial balance allocations appear significantly higher than documented testnet amounts
The genesis file allocates 100,000,000,000,000 ueve to each account, which is substantially higher than the documented testnet allocation of 1,000,000,000 ueve mentioned in the README. The total supply of 300,000,000,000,000 ueve in the genesis file appears to be inconsistent with the testnet documentation.
- The README shows validators should be funded with 1,000,000,000 ueve initially
- Current genesis allocates 100,000,000,000,000 ueve per account
- Total supply is set to 300,000,000,000,000 ueve
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
54-79: Verify initial balance allocationsEach account is being allocated 100,000,000,000,000 ueve tokens. Please confirm if this allocation:
- Aligns with the network's tokenomics design
- Maintains appropriate token distribution
- Follows the denomination's decimal places convention
Run the following script to check for similar allocations in other genesis files:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for similar balance allocations in other genesis files # Look for patterns of large initial balances in other genesis files fd -e json -x jq -r '.app_state.bank.balances[] | select(.coins[].amount == "100000000000000" and .coins[].denom == "ueve") | .address' {}Length of output: 1089
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the total supply and other accounts in the genesis file cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq -r '.app_state.bank.supply[] | select(.denom == "ueve") | .amount' # Also check if there are any other accounts with different amounts cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq -r '.app_state.bank.balances[] | select(.coins[].denom == "ueve") | {address: .address, amount: .coins[].amount}'Length of output: 571
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check if there's any documentation about tokenomics or token distribution fd -e md -e txt | xargs grep -l -i "tokenomics\|token distribution\|initial supply\|ueve" # Also check for any configuration files that might define token denominations fd "config|params" -e toml -e yaml -e json | xargs grep -l "ueve"Length of output: 185
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the content of the testnet README for any relevant information cat networks/testnets/README.md # Also check if this is a testnet-specific configuration by looking at the directory structure ls -R networks/Length of output: 1870
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json (1)
85-85: Verify total supply calculation
The total supply is set to 300,000,000,000,000 ueve. Please verify that this matches the sum of all account balances:
- eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy: 100,000,000,000,000
- eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd: 100,000,000,000,000
- eve16hpk4083nxajqhuc3rh9lvxpw6rz8z60ra3sem: 100,000,000,000,000
Run the following script to validate the total supply matches all balances:
✅ Verification successful
Total supply calculation verified
The total supply of 300,000,000,000,000 ueve matches exactly with the sum of all account balances:
- eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy: 100,000,000,000,000 ueve
- eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd: 100,000,000,000,000 ueve
- eve16hpk4083nxajqhuc3rh9lvxpw6rz8z60ra3sem: 100,000,000,000,000 ueve
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Validate that total supply matches sum of all balances
jq -r '
.app_state.bank.supply[] |
select(.denom == "ueve") |
.amount as $total |
($total | tonumber) ==
([../.app_state.bank.balances[].coins[] |
select(.denom == "ueve") |
.amount |
tonumber] | add) or
"Supply mismatch: Total=" + $total + " vs Sum=" +
([../.app_state.bank.balances[].coins[] |
select(.denom == "ueve") |
.amount |
tonumber] | add | tostring)
' networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json
Length of output: 540
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check the structure of the genesis.json file
cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq '.app_state.bank'
Length of output: 854
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json
Outdated
| "@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount", | ||
| "address": "eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy", | ||
| "pub_key": null, | ||
| "account_number": "1", | ||
| "sequence": "0" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount", | ||
| "address": "eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd", | ||
| "pub_key": null, | ||
| "account_number": "1", | ||
| "sequence": "0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix duplicate account numbers
Both new accounts are assigned the same account_number "1", which could lead to transaction ordering issues and state conflicts. Each account should have a unique account number.
Suggested fix:
{
"@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount",
"address": "eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy",
"pub_key": null,
- "account_number": "1",
+ "account_number": "1",
"sequence": "0"
},
{
"@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount",
"address": "eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd",
"pub_key": null,
- "account_number": "1",
+ "account_number": "2",
"sequence": "0"
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| "@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount", | |
| "address": "eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy", | |
| "pub_key": null, | |
| "account_number": "1", | |
| "sequence": "0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount", | |
| "address": "eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd", | |
| "pub_key": null, | |
| "account_number": "1", | |
| "sequence": "0" | |
| "@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount", | |
| "address": "eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy", | |
| "pub_key": null, | |
| "account_number": "1", | |
| "sequence": "0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount", | |
| "address": "eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd", | |
| "pub_key": null, | |
| "account_number": "2", | |
| "sequence": "0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-5ce9d2210fb8c25750766211efa6479f20e7f224.json (1)
1-1: Consider optimizing gas limitThe gas limit of 200000 seems high for a validator creation transaction. Consider reducing it to a more appropriate value like 150000.
- "gas_limit":"200000" + "gas_limit":"150000"
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json(4 hunks)networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-5ce9d2210fb8c25750766211efa6479f20e7f224.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json (3)
101-101: Verify total supply calculation
The total supply of 300000000000000 ueve correctly matches the sum of all account balances (100000000000000 * 3).
30-48:
Fix duplicate account numbers
Multiple accounts are assigned the same account_number "1", which could lead to transaction ordering issues and state conflicts.
Apply this fix:
{
"@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount",
"address": "eve18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazvwwxyy",
"pub_key": null,
- "account_number": "1",
+ "account_number": "1",
"sequence": "0"
},
{
"@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount",
"address": "eve18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach4y9lxd",
"pub_key": null,
- "account_number": "1",
+ "account_number": "2",
"sequence": "0"
},
{
"@type": "/cosmos.auth.v1beta1.BaseAccount",
"address": "eve1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dzsptfr7",
"pub_key": null,
- "account_number": "1",
+ "account_number": "3",
"sequence": "0"
}Line range hint 61-95: Verify initial balance distribution
The initial balance distribution of 100000000000000 ueve to each account seems high. Please confirm if this is the intended distribution for the testnet.
✅ Verification successful
Initial balance distribution appears consistent with testnet configurations
The distribution of 100000000000000 ueve (100M EVE) per account in the Raspberry Pi testnet is actually lower than other testnet configurations, which show distributions of 1000000000000000 (1B EVE). This appears to be an intentional reduction in the testnet allocation, making it more conservative than other test environments.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if similar balance distributions exist in other networks
fd -t f "genesis.json" -x grep -l "100000000000000" {} \;
Length of output: 167
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the total supply and distribution in other genesis files for comparison
for file in $(fd -t f "genesis.json"); do
echo "=== $file ==="
# Extract and count unique amounts
jq -r '.app_state.bank.balances[].coins[].amount' "$file" 2>/dev/null | sort | uniq -c || true
done
Length of output: 824
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"iliyanbachiyski","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dz3fhaze","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"71KqC7VMlbLvY2Q+2T95EtLEM0QmcmgOLmScGwkVb0Q="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"AyugAVonfqGYfIHmp9eggfNElnA5ziEns/eOTvSYAQb/"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["EZantVCNUpgJFghROltmVrbm9StUsfhKx/avMsJxWslzKungNvzZfBjA0k/rfm8iLrH2Quse+6ZNjiMbVdd0Wg=="]} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix invalid commission rate configuration
The commission rate (0.420699) exceeds the specified max_rate (0.2), which would cause the validator creation to fail.
Apply this fix:
- "rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000"
+ "rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"iliyanbachiyski","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dz3fhaze","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"71KqC7VMlbLvY2Q+2T95EtLEM0QmcmgOLmScGwkVb0Q="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"AyugAVonfqGYfIHmp9eggfNElnA5ziEns/eOTvSYAQb/"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["EZantVCNUpgJFghROltmVrbm9StUsfhKx/avMsJxWslzKungNvzZfBjA0k/rfm8iLrH2Quse+6ZNjiMbVdd0Wg=="]} | |
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"iliyanbachiyski","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dz3fhaze","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"71KqC7VMlbLvY2Q+2T95EtLEM0QmcmgOLmScGwkVb0Q="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"AyugAVonfqGYfIHmp9eggfNElnA5ziEns/eOTvSYAQb/"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["EZantVCNUpgJFghROltmVrbm9StUsfhKx/avMsJxWslzKungNvzZfBjA0k/rfm8iLrH2Quse+6ZNjiMbVdd0Wg=="]} |
Add missing delegator address
The delegator_address field is empty, which is required for creating a validator.
The delegator address should match the account address from genesis.json:
- "delegator_address":""
+ "delegator_address":"eve1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dzsptfr7"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"iliyanbachiyski","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dz3fhaze","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"71KqC7VMlbLvY2Q+2T95EtLEM0QmcmgOLmScGwkVb0Q="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"AyugAVonfqGYfIHmp9eggfNElnA5ziEns/eOTvSYAQb/"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["EZantVCNUpgJFghROltmVrbm9StUsfhKx/avMsJxWslzKungNvzZfBjA0k/rfm8iLrH2Quse+6ZNjiMbVdd0Wg=="]} | |
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"iliyanbachiyski","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.420699000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"eve1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dzsptfr7","validator_address":"evevaloper1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dz3fhaze","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"71KqC7VMlbLvY2Q+2T95EtLEM0QmcmgOLmScGwkVb0Q="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"AyugAVonfqGYfIHmp9eggfNElnA5ziEns/eOTvSYAQb/"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["EZantVCNUpgJFghROltmVrbm9StUsfhKx/avMsJxWslzKungNvzZfBjA0k/rfm8iLrH2Quse+6ZNjiMbVdd0Wg=="]} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json (1)
Line range hint
75-133: Consider implications of large initial allocationsThe current setup allocates 100,000,000,000,000 ueve tokens to each account, which:
- Might not represent realistic mainnet conditions
- Could affect testing of economic parameters
- May impact validator behavior testing
Consider if smaller allocations would provide more realistic testing scenarios.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json(4 hunks)networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-a8903d9f0589b84586f5eebd258345caa14651e8.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json (3)
28-62: LGTM: Account configuration looks correct
The accounts are properly configured with sequential account numbers and correct initial parameters.
133-133: LGTM: Supply matches total allocation
The updated supply of 600,000,000,000,000 ueve correctly reflects the sum of all account balances (6 accounts × 100,000,000,000,000).
Line range hint 75-127: Verify the intended token distribution
Each account is allocated 100,000,000,000,000 ueve tokens. Please confirm if this significant allocation aligns with the testnet's economic model and testing requirements.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the token distribution by checking the genesis configuration and any documentation that might explain these allocations.
Let me check if there are any configuration files or documentation specifically for the testnet that might explain these allocations.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response about the token distribution in the genesis file:
Token allocation aligns with testnet requirements
The allocation of 100,000,000,000,000 ueve tokens per account is consistent with the testnet's configuration and requirements:
- This is a testnet environment where large allocations are common for testing purposes
- The distribution is uniform across all 6 validator accounts
- The total supply (600,000,000,000,000 ueve) is properly accounted for in the genesis state
- The configuration follows the chain's economic model where ueve is set as:
- The primary fee token
- The staking token (bond_denom)
- The mint token (mint_denom)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Calculate total allocation and distribution
echo "Total accounts with balance:"
rg -c '"amount": "100000000000000"' networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json
echo "Unique balance amounts:"
rg '"amount": "\d+"' networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json --only-matching | sort | uniq -c
Length of output: 448
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for documentation about token distribution
echo "Searching for token distribution documentation:"
rg -i "token distribution|initial allocation|genesis allocation" -A 3 -B 3
echo -e "\nChecking genesis configuration:"
cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq '.app_state.bank.balances[] | {address: .address, amount: .coins[].amount, denom: .coins[].denom}'
echo -e "\nChecking if these addresses are validators:"
cat networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json | jq '.app_state.staking.validators[].operator_address'
Length of output: 1281
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for testnet configuration and documentation
echo "Checking testnet documentation:"
fd README -t f | xargs cat
echo -e "\nChecking for testnet configuration files:"
fd . networks/testnets/raspi -t f -x cat {}
echo -e "\nChecking for any denomination configuration:"
rg -i "ueve|denom" -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 71579
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-a8903d9f0589b84586f5eebd258345caa14651e8.json (3)
6-12: Consider adding security contact information and validator identity.
The validator description is missing crucial information that helps establish trust and enables communication during emergencies. Consider adding:
- A security contact email for urgent communications
- An identity string (e.g., Keybase identity) for verification
- A website for transparency
25-28: Verify staking amount meets network requirements.
The staking amount of 10,000,000 EVE needs verification:
- Does it meet the minimum validator requirements?
- Is it proportional to other validators' stakes?
- Does it comply with maximum stake limitations?
✅ Verification successful
Let me try to find the staking parameters from other configuration files since they're not in genesis.json.
Let me try one more search to find any staking-related configurations.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
Staking amount is consistent with other validators
The staking amount of 10,000,000 EVE (10000000000000 ueve) is:
- Consistent with all other validators in the testnet who have the same stake amount
- Uses the correct bond denomination "ueve" as specified in the network's genesis
- No explicit min/max validator stake limits are set in the network parameters
While there are no explicit minimum or maximum stake limitations defined, the fact that all validators have configured the same stake amount (10M EVE) suggests this is the network's recommended value for the testnet.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Compare staking amounts across validators
fd -t f 'gentx-.*\.json' networks/testnets/raspi/gentx --exec jq -r '.body.messages[0].value | "Validator stake: \(.amount) \(.denom)"'
# Check genesis configuration for staking parameters
fd -t f 'genesis.json' networks/testnets/raspi --exec jq -r '.app_state.staking.params | "Min validator stake: \(.min_validator_stake), Max validator stake: \(.max_validator_stake)"'
Length of output: 595
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for staking parameters in config files
rg -i "validator.*stake|min.*stake|max.*stake" -A 2 -B 2
# Look for chain configuration files
fd -t f "config.*.toml|*.yaml|params.json" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 2206
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for staking configurations with fixed paths
fd -t f . --glob '*.toml' --exec cat {}
# Search for staking-related code that might define parameters
ast-grep --pattern 'const $_ = $$$stake$$$'
# Look for staking configurations in app initialization
rg -i "staking.*param|bond.*denom|initial.*stake" -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 8790
51-56: Verify fee configuration meets network requirements.
The transaction fee configuration shows:
- Empty fee amount array
- Gas limit of 200000
Please verify if the network accepts fee-less transactions or if minimum fees are required.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the fee configuration by checking other relevant files.
Let me check one more aspect - the chain configuration and any documentation about fees.
Based on the gathered information:
- The genesis parameters show a tx_size_cost_per_byte of 10 but no minimum gas price limit
- All other gentx files in the directory have the same fee configuration (empty fee amount)
- No additional fee configuration was found in config files or documentation
Empty fee configuration appears to be the standard for this testnet
The empty fee configuration in the gentx file aligns with:
- The network's genesis parameters showing no minimum gas price limit
- The consistent pattern across all other gentx files
- The testnet nature of the network (testnets often allow fee-less transactions)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check network's minimum fee requirements
fd -t f 'genesis.json' networks/testnets/raspi --exec jq -r '.app_state.auth.params.min_gas_price_limit, .app_state.auth.params.tx_size_cost_per_byte'
Length of output: 158
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check config files for fee settings
fd -t f 'config.toml|app.toml' networks/testnets/raspi --exec cat {} \; | grep -i 'minimum-gas\|min-gas\|fee'
# Check other gentx files for fee patterns
fd -t f 'gentx-.*\.json' networks/testnets/raspi/gentx --exec jq -r '.body.fee' {}
Length of output: 229
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check README or documentation files for fee information
fd -t f 'README.md|SETUP.md|GENESIS.md' networks/testnets/raspi --exec cat {}
# Check chain configuration
fd -t f 'chain.json|chain_config.json' networks/testnets/raspi --exec cat {}
# Check genesis template if exists
fd -t f 'genesis.template.json' networks/testnets/raspi --exec cat {}
Length of output: 234
| "min_self_delegation": "1", | ||
| "delegator_address": "", | ||
| "validator_address": "evevaloper1l6qf3pdxe8rrr8ak8lt9ypff66s3rhuaqlsvtl", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Missing delegator address and insufficient minimum self delegation.
Two critical issues found:
- The
delegator_addressfield is empty, which will cause the transaction to fail - The
min_self_delegationof "1" is extremely low. Consider setting a higher value to demonstrate skin in the game and prevent validator hopping.
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "memo": "[email protected]:26656", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Invalid node address in memo field.
The memo contains a private network IP address (192.168.0.78) which won't be accessible to other nodes on the network. Please update this to a public IP address or domain name.
| "commission": { | ||
| "rate": "0.100000000000000000", | ||
| "max_rate": "0.200000000000000000", | ||
| "max_change_rate": "0.010000000000000000" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Commission rate exceeds maximum rate in multiple validators
Critical issue found: Several validators have set their initial commission rate to 42.0699%, which exceeds their maximum rate of 20%. This is an invalid configuration that will cause validator creation to fail.
Affected validators:
- Rate: 42.0699%, Max Rate: 20% (found in 3 gentx files)
- Rate: 6.942%, Max Rate: 20% (found in 2 gentx files)
- Rate: 10%, Max Rate: 20% (found in 1 gentx file)
The initial commission rate must be less than or equal to the maximum rate. The validators with 42.0699% initial rate need to adjust their configuration.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify commission rate configuration aligns with network economics.
The commission configuration is immutable after validator creation. Current settings:
- Initial rate: 10%
- Maximum rate: 20%
- Maximum daily increase: 1%
The maximum rate of 20% might be restrictive for future adjustments. Consider if this aligns with the network's long-term economic model.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check other validators' commission configurations for consistency
fd -t f 'gentx-.*\.json' networks/testnets/raspi/gentx --exec jq -r '.body.messages[0].commission | "Rate: \(.rate), Max Rate: \(.max_rate), Max Change Rate: \(.max_change_rate)"'
Length of output: 769
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json (1)
1-1: Consider using standard commission ratesThe current commission rate (0.042069900000000000) appears to be a meme reference. For a production network, consider using standard commission rates (e.g., 5% or 10%) that reflect your validator's value proposition and operational costs.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7.json (2)
1-1: Verify key ownership and backup
The public keys are properly formatted, but ensure you:
- Have securely backed up the corresponding private keys
- Have tested these keys on a testnet before mainnet deployment
- Are using a hardware security module (HSM) for private key storage
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
1-1:
Improve validator profile for production readiness
The validator description needs professional configuration:
- Change moniker from "lol" to a professional name
- Add security contact information (required for network security)
- Provide website and identity details for transparency
Example configuration:
-"moniker":"lol","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""
+"moniker":"EveValidator-1","identity":"keybase_id","website":"https://validator.example.com","security_contact":"[email protected]","details":"Professional Eve Network Validator"🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"lol","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.042069900000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18p4wl3hss9e9wv264yklyjp700kn8uazdxjj9r","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"KvRZdsJqIckq7eqZDZwejabRtqGuaClVAa2zXsjB9Zk="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A/TFoIoCHY57GSzKLKRfq2XwbNujwGmvzXacyIAia4Ab"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["qGzGtfwk2d1Y9dUY0HHUHzwy1c+FS8GT7ZQRYgQut98tJaqCQiR/7T/eGpCsSTFq8uQdNGzM6o9kS3tStYeCcw=="]} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Fix delegation configuration
Several critical issues in the delegation setup:
- Empty delegator_address field must be filled
- min_self_delegation of "1" is too low for a production validator
Recommendations:
- Add your delegator address
- Set a meaningful min_self_delegation amount (e.g., "1000000000" ueve) to demonstrate commitment to the network
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
Update node address configuration
The node address (192.168.0.170) is a private IP address that won't be accessible to other nodes in the network. Update this to your public endpoint before submitting the gentx.
Example:
-"[email protected]:26656"
+"9486066c4712c00a7cab5f7b188fff4c978fb9e7@public.validator.example.com:26656"Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
1-1: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json(4 hunks)networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-db8dff4ddd8d414a462377f4409df0ee0622e7a8.json(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- networks/testnets/raspi/genesis.json
🔇 Additional comments (3)
networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/gentx-db8dff4ddd8d414a462377f4409df0ee0622e7a8.json (3)
1-1:
Warning: Private IP address in node address
The memo field contains a private IP address (192.168.0.175), which won't be accessible to other nodes on the network. For a testnet validator, you should use a public IP address or DNS name.
1-1: Verify staking amount against network parameters
The staking amount of 10,000,000,000,000 ueve needs to be verified against:
- The network's total supply
- Other validators' stake amounts
- Network's minimum validator stake requirements
✅ Verification successful
Staking amount is consistent with network parameters
The verification shows that:
- All gentx files have the same staking amount of 10,000,000,000,000 ueve
- The genesis file shows each validator account has been allocated 100,000,000,000,000 ueve
- Total supply is 700,000,000,000,000 ueve (distributed among 7 accounts)
The staking amount (10T ueve) is reasonable as it represents 10% of each validator's initial allocation (100T ueve), allowing for future delegation and maintaining network security while not over-committing their funds.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Compare stake amounts across all gentx files
rg -l "amount" | xargs jq -r '.body.messages[0].value.amount'
# Check if genesis.json exists and get total supply
if [ -f "../genesis.json" ]; then
jq -r '.app_state.bank.supply' "../genesis.json"
fi
Length of output: 147
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more specific search for gentx files and their amounts
fd 'gentx.*json$' networks/testnets/raspi/gentx/ | while read -r file; do
echo "File: $file"
jq -r '.body.messages[0].value.amount' "$file"
done
# Check for network parameters in config files
fd -t f '.*config.*\.json$|.*genesis.*\.json$' networks/testnets/raspi/ | while read -r file; do
echo "File: $file"
cat "$file"
done
Length of output: 15261
1-1: Consider enhancing validator security and identity configuration
- The minimum self delegation of "1" is extremely low and might not demonstrate sufficient skin in the game.
- Security contact information is empty, which is not recommended for production validators.
- Missing identity fields reduce validator discoverability and trustworthiness.
Consider:
- Increasing minimum self delegation to a more substantial amount
- Adding security contact information
- Including identity information from keybase.io
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"tuga","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.100000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1l732ry6k3zrf5jre96c0jmy5mdjvddpu65h5p7","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"fpYtN2Y6/BiT73duDs6NXBOnXgRz1dMrpEFf+F+P1B8="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A+cXoTUypYotoi2gEaOjEWMn4JRPDouXwlcVigIiMqjE"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["VGixvwF/LoHHKj7F/YTU4G3uT+WxW9uy6YFH9a5jHGkwBPt50loCcAOV8IDHoNTHb+zPbOYjYHCM9prQyPz20Q=="]} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Critical: Empty delegator addresses in all gentx files
All gentx files in the repository have empty delegator addresses, which is a systemic issue. The delegator address is a mandatory field that must be set to the address derived from the signer's public key for each validator. This will cause all transactions to fail.
- Found 7 gentx files, all with missing delegator addresses
- Each file has a validator address set but the corresponding delegator address is empty
🔗 Analysis chain
Critical: Missing delegator address
The delegator_address field is empty, which will cause the transaction to fail. This address is required and should match the address derived from the signer's public key.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if this is a pattern in other gentx files
rg -l "delegator_address" | xargs jq -r '.body.messages[0].delegator_address' | grep -c '^$'
Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check all gentx files to see the pattern of empty delegator addresses
rg -l "delegator_address" | xargs jq -r '[.body.messages[0].delegator_address, .body.messages[0].validator_address] | @tsv'
Length of output: 482
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"iliyanbachiyski","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.100000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1wrns6kdtxql3rstkk7mx8f4v49tal3dz3fhaze","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"71KqC7VMlbLvY2Q+2T95EtLEM0QmcmgOLmScGwkVb0Q="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"AyugAVonfqGYfIHmp9eggfNElnA5ziEns/eOTvSYAQb/"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["jGgW/wSw6T4S8AQ3UicWCGx85sM4mMW2YO4K4cIxoKkyfkN1JHBY8VPrSx6gKrv/2r5Iim/nK5VCEN0oAmt2xA=="]} | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / devskim
A token or key was found in source code. If this represents a secret, it should be moved somewhere else. Error test
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"vladimirtrifonov","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.069420000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper18r27aslqyuk3wsmaqqq9l4lyd6c0dach5vet82","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"NpFYcaTifPwiYVaUC6xCa9fDCpp2qbc1I2hg7m4PKmo="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"Ato5x5j4N2ZohrVFlhuTMVmnxUdWMqB3STBV3QhOhTgR"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["Q+YODL55yAigOjAE1ShBEw0F79yPaeSOKaB9pe5cdXBDHBlSzkr9NjUyrKN+mapX2crXz8WbqkHy1Oisr3O+MA=="]} | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / devskim
A token or key was found in source code. If this represents a secret, it should be moved somewhere else. Error test
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgCreateValidator","description":{"moniker":"tuga","identity":"","website":"","security_contact":"","details":""},"commission":{"rate":"0.100000000000000000","max_rate":"0.200000000000000000","max_change_rate":"0.010000000000000000"},"min_self_delegation":"1","delegator_address":"","validator_address":"evevaloper1l732ry6k3zrf5jre96c0jmy5mdjvddpu65h5p7","pubkey":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey","key":"fpYtN2Y6/BiT73duDs6NXBOnXgRz1dMrpEFf+F+P1B8="},"value":{"denom":"ueve","amount":"10000000000000"}}],"memo":"[email protected]:26656","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[{"public_key":{"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.secp256k1.PubKey","key":"A+cXoTUypYotoi2gEaOjEWMn4JRPDouXwlcVigIiMqjE"},"mode_info":{"single":{"mode":"SIGN_MODE_DIRECT"}},"sequence":"0"}],"fee":{"amount":[],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""},"tip":null},"signatures":["VGixvwF/LoHHKj7F/YTU4G3uT+WxW9uy6YFH9a5jHGkwBPt50loCcAOV8IDHoNTHb+zPbOYjYHCM9prQyPz20Q=="]} | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / devskim
A token or key was found in source code. If this represents a secret, it should be moved somewhere else. Error test
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
uevedenomination.Bug Fixes