I could not put much effort in this audit. Yet I think the results are quite unfair.
1️⃣ I thought of issue H-01 in the report about the cross-chain bridge being incomaptible with some kind of wallets. But I did not submit it because I deemed it Informational and design choice, yet the judge decided to label it as High.
2️⃣ The issue I submitted was labeled as Invalid: Informational. I completely disagree it is at least a Low. The issue is this one, about a hard-fork changing the chainId. The invalidation reason was that the main chain will keep the chainId, this is not the point of the issue. If the protocol doesnt like the new mechanics of the new main chain and wants to keep operating in the old Arbitrum they would not be able to do so. Protocol says they want to operate in Arbitrum but if it hard-forks there will be 2 Arbitrum and the protocol can't decide which to chose, possibly being locked in the one they actually dislike. Sadly, I did not have time to escalate this issue.