economic-design-audit

ECONOMIC_DESIGN_AUDIT Skill

Trigger Pattern: MONETARY_PARAMETER flag (required) Inject Into: Breadth agents (merged via M4 hierarchy) Purpose: Analyze admin-settable economic parameters (fees, rates, thresholds, emission schedules) for boundary violations, invariant breaks, interaction extremes, and fee formula correctness

For every monetary parameter setter (rate, rebase, supply, mint, burn, emission, inflation, peg, price cap/floor, fee, reward rate) in the protocol:

1. Parameter Boundary Analysis

Parameter	Setter Function	Min Value	Max Value	Enforced?	Impact at Min	Impact at Max
{param}	{set_fn}	{min}	{max}	YES/NO	{impact}	{impact}

For each parameter: substitute min and max into ALL consuming functions. Tag: [BOUNDARY:param=val -> outcome]

Aptos-specific checks:

• Are bounds enforced via assert!() in the setter? If not, admin can set any value within the type range (u64::MAX, u128::MAX)
• Does the protocol use u64 or u128 for monetary values? Check for overflow at max values.
• Are there separate bounds for testnet vs mainnet? (Sometimes hardcoded differently)

2. Economic Invariant Identification

List all economic invariants the protocol must maintain:

Invariant	Parameters Involved	Can Admin Break It?	Functions That Assume It
total_supply == sum(all_balances)	mint/burn params	YES/NO	{fn list}
fees < principal	fee_rate	YES/NO	{fn list}
collateral_ratio >= min_ratio	ratio_param	YES/NO	{fn list}
rewards_distributed <= rewards_pool	emission_rate	YES/NO	{fn list}

For each setter: can changing this parameter break an invariant that user-facing functions depend on? If yes -> finding.

Aptos-specific invariants:

• FungibleAsset total supply tracking via supply() must match minted - burned
• Object-based accounting: sum of all store balances == total assets managed
• Resource conservation: tokens entering protocol == tokens accounted internally