The Money on Chain - RIF on Chain bounty program covers two dual-token stablecoin protocols within one shared smart-contract ecosystem in the Rootstock blockchain.
Money on Chain uses RBTC collateral, while RIF on Chain uses RIF collateral. Each aims to provide a fully on-chain, censorship-resistant, USD-pegged and overcollateralized stablecoin, alongside low-maintenance, cost-efficient leveraged exposure for long-term holders of its respective collateral asset.
Both protocols are governed through the MOC token and share core governance, oracle, fee-flow, and supporting contracts.
Step-by-step PoC Required
KYC required
Select the category you'd like to explore
Assets in Scope
Impacts in Scope
We tailored the program’s impacts to the protocol guarantees: maintaining solvency and adequate collateralization except where affected by genuine market-price movements; preserving stablecoin holders’ ability to redeem; preventing unauthorized arbitrage; and protecting collateral from adversarial extraction that could make the protocol unprofitable for residual-token holders, including RIFPRO and BPRO holders.
Manipulation of governance results, bypassing the minimum vote threshold, quorum requirement, or minimum voting period.
A loss of funds involving an attack that does not require any user action
Direct theft of any user funds, whether at-rest or in-motion, other than unclaimed yield
Permanent freezing of funds
Protocol insolvency
Execute arbitrary system commands
Retrieve sensitive data/files from a running server, such as:
- /etc/shadow
- database passwords
- blockchain keys (this does not include non-sensitive environment variables, open source code, or usernames)
Subdomain takeover with already-connected wallet interaction
Direct theft of user funds
Malicious interactions with an already-connected wallet, such as:
- Modifying transaction arguments or parameters
- Substituting contract addresses
- Submitting malicious transactions
Injection of malicious HTML or XSS through metadata
An oracle can provide an arbitrary price not calculated from the market observations; or out of consensus; or a price that was valid but more than 20 blocks ago.
Out of scope
Best-practice critiques Reports that identify deviations from best practices, style preferences, gas optimizations, code-quality concerns, or theoretical hardening opportunities without a demonstrable security impact on an in-scope mainnet deployment.
Hypothetical misconfiguration Issues that require a configuration error in a contract, oracle node, service, deployment parameter, access-control role, or operational process, where that misconfiguration is not present in the current mainnet deployment. A report must demonstrate the issue against the actual live configuration.
Unlikely or unreasonable user actions Attacks that require a victim to take implausible, non-standard, or clearly unsafe actions without deception or a protocol-level vulnerability. Examples include voluntarily approving arbitrary token allowances, signing clearly unrelated transactions, or knowingly interacting with an attacker-controlled interface.
URL redirects Open redirects, URL manipulation, or redirect behavior that does not directly enable another valid in-scope vulnerability. Redirects may be considered only when combined with a separate vulnerability that produces a concrete security impact.
Insider or pre-existing privileged access Attacks that require the attacker to already possess privileged access within Money on Chain, RIF on Chain, an oracle operator, a governance administrator, or another trusted organization. This exclusion does not cover vulnerabilities that allow an unprivileged attacker to obtain or bypass such access.
Non-current deployments or code, and disabled functionality Older contract versions may remain on-chain indefinitely, and historical versions of the codebase may remain available in GitHub repositories. Such versions are out of scope unless they are referenced by, reachable from, and actively used by the current mainnet protocol. A proof of concept must demonstrate that the affected code is deployed, reachable, and was executed by the protocol through an external or internal mainnet transaction within the preceding ten days.
Disabled or centrally managed functionalities The BTCX and Settlement functionalities were a bit problematic, and are not used anymore, but we are not ready to re-deploy the contract that has them, so they were disabled with configuration changes, applied via gobernance proposals. The Vendors functionality is centrally managed, while some on-chain registrations occur, it's permissioned and it has some corner cases affecting the vendor payouts when they have not met the MOC token staking requirements, but these are managed off-chain with the very few vendors registered in the program.
Web & App specific
- Theoretical impacts without any proof or demonstration
- Impacts involving attacks requiring physical access to the victim device
- Impacts involving attacks requiring access to the local network of the victim
- Reflected plain text injection (e.g. url parameters, path, etc.)
- This does not exclude reflected HTML injection with or without JavaScript
- This does not exclude persistent plain text injection
- Any impacts involving self-XSS
- Captcha bypass using OCR without impact demonstration
- CSRF with no state modifying security impact (e.g. logout CSRF)
- Impacts related to missing HTTP Security Headers (such as X-FRAME-OPTIONS) or cookie security flags (such as “httponly”) without demonstration of impact
- Server-side non-confidential information disclosure, such as IPs, server names, and most stack traces
- Impacts causing only the enumeration or confirmation of the existence of users or tenants
- Impacts caused by vulnerabilities requiring un-prompted, in-app user actions that are not part of the normal app workflows
- Lack of SSL/TLS best practices
- Impacts that only require DDoS
- UX and UI impacts that do not materially disrupt use of the platform
- Impacts primarily caused by browser/plugin defects
- Leakage of non sensitive API keys (e.g. Etherscan, Infura, Alchemy, etc.)
- Any vulnerability exploit requiring browser bugs for exploitation (e.g. CSP bypass)
- SPF/DMARC misconfigured records)
- Missing HTTP Headers without demonstrated impact
- Automated scanner reports without demonstrated impact
- UI/UX best practice recommendations
- Non-future-proof NFT rendering
All categories
- Impacts requiring attacks that the reporter has already exploited themselves, leading to damage
- Impacts caused by attacks requiring access to leaked keys/credentials
- Impacts caused by attacks requiring access to privileged addresses (including, but not limited to: governance and strategist contracts) without additional modifications to the privileges attributed
- Impacts relying on attacks involving the depegging of an external stablecoin where the attacker does not directly cause the depegging due to a bug in code
- Mentions of secrets, access tokens, API keys, private keys, etc. in Github will be considered out of scope without proof that they are in-use in production
- Best practice recommendations
- Feature requests
- Impacts on test files and configuration files unless stated otherwise in the bug bounty program
- Impacts requiring phishing or other social engineering attacks against project's employees and/or customers