So I take it that no independent 3rd party audited this smart contract? Because defining a constant twice is already big enough of a code smell to warrant spend

So I take it that no independent 3rd party audited this smart contract? Because defining a constant twice is already big enough of a code smell to warrant spending more than 10s on them (enough to distinguish a 0 from a O). They didn't even try that hard, e.g. "SLΟT" is way closer to "SLOT" than "SL0T". This speaks volume about how much you can get away with in this ecosystem. That's also a vulnerability which should have been exposed by tests (again, run by an independent 3rd party).