Analyzing the original BondingCurve, I could say that It is minimal and gas-efficient. It can handle larger numbers, although at the risk of overflows for them. Exponential operations expWad can easily overflow with large numbers, and the contract didn't protect against this.

More stuff:

• High: No bounds on exponential calculations
• Medium: No transaction size limits
• Medium: No supply caps
• Low: No event emissions for important state changes

// Original - more flexible but dangerous
function getAmountOut(uint256 x0, uint256 deltaY) public view returns (uint256 deltaX)

// This version - safer but more constrained
if (remainingSupply < MIN_REMAINING_SUPPLY) {
    revert InsufficientRemainingSupply(remainingSupply, MIN_REMAINING_SUPPLY);
}

The original version could be vulnerable to:

• integer overflow attacks
• economic attacks through large transactions
• potential DOS through numerical limitations

Upon trying to solve this, I figured it comes at great costs like:

• max supply must be lowered
• transaction sizes must also be low/restricted
• there's now more gas costs due to the checks being done

$ forge build

$ forge test -vvv

$ forge fmt

$ forge snapshot

$ anvil

$ forge script script/Counter.s.sol:CounterScript --rpc-url <your_rpc_url> --private-key <your_private_key>

$ cast <subcommand>

$ forge --help
$ anvil --help
$ cast --help