Explanation of recent incorrect publishing of audit report on tacoswap.io website

We are sorry for any confusion caused by the publishing of the incorrect audit report today.
It was a mistake made in error by a developer; as we have various shared folders related to tacoswap (including competitors data) and the developer got confused with the content and decided to go ahead and add it into the main site without properly checking.

The other audit (we downloaded it from here: https://taco.finance/files/TacoSwap_SC_Audit_Report.pdf ) is indeed not our original TacoSwap, it is for the BSC token named TacoSwap on the contract. There are 3 versions of TACO and 2 versions of TacoSwap right now, so this all causes confusion, we are planning to change the symbol to the UTACO or another similar name to avoid this in the near future (with some other big changes on tokenomics).

There was no intention to misguide the community; it was a human error and we are truly sorry for it.

Speaking on the topic of audit:
- please note that our code originally was taken from SushiSwap (legacy)
SushiSwap: https://github.com/sushiswap/sushiswap/blob/master/contracts/MasterChef.sol
Our code: https://github.com/TacoswapCRD/tacoswap-contracts/blob/master/contracts/TacoChef.sol
(or other contracts from there https://github.com/TacoswapCRD/tacoswap-contracts )

You can run this code comparison yourself via one of these tools:
https://text-compare.com/ https://www.diffchecker.com/
And find out that there is almost no differences between contracts, except very minor fixes

SushiSwap’s two audited contracts are available here:
https://github.com/peckshield/publications/blob/master/audit_reports/PeckShield-Audit-Report-SushiSwap-v1.0.pdf
https://github.com/quantstamp/sushiswap-security-review

We have applied some audit recommendation fixes in our contract. We are working on the next versions of the contracts to introduce new functionality but our current versions are running on what is available on github. Sushiswap has proven itself to be a safe and working foundation for forking and so we are quite confident that the current code is secure.

As we are planning to introduce new functionality we expected to invite auditors at a later stage. We are also in the process of obtaining an audit (not only a security audit but also an audit of the business model as whole) with one of the big four firms, but the onboarding process with them is taking a lot of time and we don’t have a clear ETA when it will be finished.

However if the community feels that there is a strong need for a security audit of existing contracts, we can offer a 5 ETH bounty from the dev fund to any reputable auditing entity which will perform the audit first.

Some of audit firms are linked below.
https://www.certik.org/ https://consensys.net/
https://www.trailofbits.com/ https://peckshield.com/
https://quantstamp.com/

We will send them an official offer via email, and this post is our official offer for them to participate on a first come fist service basis.

Tacoswap by CRD