Incorrect Parameter in Redeemed Event Emission

[hats-bug-reporter]

Github username: --
Twitter username: --
Submission hash (on-chain): 0xfe48c86ee5fde1eaae0770dab56021baee6c579c2aa94c61a309134d82982c86
Severity: low

Description:
Description
In the _redeem function of the EthMultiVault contract, there's a minor discrepancy between the declared event signature and the actual event emission. The Redeemed event is designed to include the vault's total balance, but the implementation incorrectly emits the owner's balance instead. This inconsistency could lead to confusion for off-chain systems monitoring these events and potentially cause issues with data integrity in external applications relying on this information.

Attack Scenario
While this is not directly exploitable, it could lead to the following issues:

1. Off-chain systems or dApps relying on the Redeemed event for tracking the vault's total balance will receive incorrect data.
2. This could result in misrepresentation of the vault's state in user interfaces or analytics platforms.
3. In a worst-case scenario, it might lead to incorrect decision-making by users or automated systems if they assume the emitted value represents the total vault balance.

Attachments

1. Proof of Concept (PoC) File
   

   Intuition-0x538dbadc50cc87b281cd655f1edbc6ebda02a66a/src/EthMultiVault.sol

   Line 987 in b2e422f

   emit Redeemed(msg.sender, owner, vaults[id].balanceOf[owner], assetsForReceiver, shares, exitFee, id);

2. Revised Code File (Optional)

function _redeem(uint256 id, address owner, uint256 shares) internal returns (uint256, uint256) {
    // ... (previous code remains the same)

    _burn(owner, id, shares);

    // Corrected: Use totalShares instead of owner's balance
    emit Redeemed(msg.sender, owner, vaults[id].totalShares, assetsForReceiver, shares, exitFee, id);

    return (assetsForReceiver, protocolFee);
}

[mihailo-maksa]

The report indicates a discrepancy in the _redeem function where the Redeemed event emits the owner's balance instead of the total vault balance.

Label: minor

Comment:
This issue has been identified internally since the start of the competition and has been fixed. However, since it’s a valuable enhancement suggestion, we can still consider a lower payout as a minor issue.

Comment on the issue:
This issue has been identified internally and fixed. Nonetheless, it's a valuable enhancement suggestion, and we will consider a lower payout as a minor issue.