Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- The multiDelegates function walks the entire delegates list and can run out of gas for large lists—consider enforcing a maximum delegates count or adding pagination to keep iteration bounded.
- The EIP-712 struct hash for array fields in multiDelegateBySig uses abi.encodePacked, which may not match the spec for dynamic types—please switch to abi.encode or the standard TypedDataEncoder for arrays to avoid potential collisions.
- In IMultiVotes the parameter name “delegatess” is misspelled—renaming it to “delegatees” will improve consistency and reduce confusion.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location> `contracts/governance/utils/MultiVotes.sol:76` </location>
<code_context>
+            return empty;
+        }
+
+        if (end >= maxLength) {
+            end = maxLength - 1;
+        }
+        uint256 length = (end + 1) - start;
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
Adjusting 'end' to maxLength-1 may be unintuitive for callers.

Consider reverting or returning an empty array when 'end' exceeds the list length, or document this adjustment clearly to avoid confusion.
</issue_to_address>

<suggested_fix>
<<<<<<< SEARCH
        if (end >= maxLength) {
            end = maxLength - 1;
        }
        uint256 length = (end + 1) - start;
        address[] memory list = new address[](length);

        for (uint256 i; i < length; i++) {
            list[i] = _delegatesList[account][start + i];
        }

        return list;
=======
        if (end >= maxLength) {
            address[] memory empty = new address[](0);
            return empty;
        }
        uint256 length = (end + 1) - start;
        address[] memory list = new address[](length);

        for (uint256 i; i < length; i++) {
            list[i] = _delegatesList[account][start + i];
        }

        return list;
>>>>>>> REPLACE

</suggested_fix>

### Comment 2
<location> `contracts/governance/utils/MultiVotes.sol:159` </location>
<code_context>
+            }
+        }
+
+        if (removedUnits >= givenUnits) {
+            uint256 refundedUnits;
+            refundedUnits = removedUnits - givenUnits;
+            /**
+             * Cannot Underflow: code logic assures that _usedUnits[account] is just a sum of active delegates units
+             * and that every units change of delegate on `account`, updates coherently _usedUnits
+             * so refundedUnits cannot be higher than _usedUnits[account]
+             */
+            unchecked {
+                _usedUnits[account] -= refundedUnits;
+            }
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
Unchecked block for subtraction relies on prior logic; consider explicit assertion.

Adding an explicit assertion or revert before the unchecked subtraction would help catch any unexpected state and prevent silent underflows.
</issue_to_address>

<suggested_fix>
<<<<<<< SEARCH
        if (removedUnits >= givenUnits) {
            uint256 refundedUnits;
            refundedUnits = removedUnits - givenUnits;
            /**
             * Cannot Underflow: code logic assures that _usedUnits[account] is just a sum of active delegates units
             * and that every units change of delegate on `account`, updates coherently _usedUnits
             * so refundedUnits cannot be higher than _usedUnits[account]
             */
            unchecked {
                _usedUnits[account] -= refundedUnits;
            }
=======
        if (removedUnits >= givenUnits) {
            uint256 refundedUnits;
            refundedUnits = removedUnits - givenUnits;
            /**
             * Cannot Underflow: code logic assures that _usedUnits[account] is just a sum of active delegates units
             * and that every units change of delegate on `account`, updates coherently _usedUnits
             * so refundedUnits cannot be higher than _usedUnits[account]
             */
            require(refundedUnits <= _usedUnits[account], "MultiVotes: refundedUnits exceeds usedUnits");
            unchecked {
                _usedUnits[account] -= refundedUnits;
            }
>>>>>>> REPLACE

</suggested_fix>

### Comment 3
<location> `contracts/governance/utils/IMultiVotes.sol:47` </location>
<code_context>
+    /**
+     * @dev Set delegates list with units assigned for each one
+     */
+    function multiDelegate(address[] calldata delegatess, uint256[] calldata units) external;
+
+    /**
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
Typo in parameter name: 'delegatess' should be 'delegatees'.

Please update the parameter name to 'delegatees'.
</issue_to_address>

<suggested_fix>
<<<<<<< SEARCH
    function multiDelegate(address[] calldata delegatess, uint256[] calldata units) external;
=======
    function multiDelegate(address[] calldata delegatees, uint256[] calldata units) external;
>>>>>>> REPLACE

</suggested_fix>

### Comment 4
<location> `contracts/governance/utils/IMultiVotes.sol:52` </location>
<code_context>
+    /**
+     * @dev Multi delegate votes from signer to `delegatess`.
+     */
+    function multiDelegateBySig(
+        address[] calldata delegatess,
+        uint256[] calldata units,
+        uint256 nonce,
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
Typo in parameter name: 'delegatess' should be 'delegatees'.

Please rename the parameter to 'delegatees' to correct the typo.
</issue_to_address>

<suggested_fix>
<<<<<<< SEARCH
    /**
     * @dev Set delegates list with units assigned for each one
     */
    function multiDelegate(address[] calldata delegatess, uint256[] calldata units) external;

    /**
     * @dev Multi delegate votes from signer to `delegatess`.
     */
    function multiDelegateBySig(
        address[] calldata delegatess,
        uint256[] calldata units,
        uint256 nonce,
        uint256 expiry,
        uint8 v,
        bytes32 r,
        bytes32 s
    ) external;
=======
    /**
     * @dev Set delegates list with units assigned for each one
     */
    function multiDelegate(address[] calldata delegatees, uint256[] calldata units) external;

    /**
     * @dev Multi delegate votes from signer to `delegatees`.
     */
    function multiDelegateBySig(
        address[] calldata delegatees,
        uint256[] calldata units,
        uint256 nonce,
        uint256 expiry,
        uint8 v,
        bytes32 r,
        bytes32 s
    ) external;
>>>>>>> REPLACE

</suggested_fix>

### Comment 5
<location> `test/token/ERC20/extensions/ERC20MultiVotes.test.js:47` </location>
<code_context>
+        expect(await this.token.nonces(this.holder)).to.equal(0n);
+      });
+
+      it('minting restriction', async function () {
+        const value = 2n ** 208n;
+        await expect(this.token.$_mint(this.holder, value))
+          .to.be.revertedWithCustomError(this.token, 'ERC20ExceededSafeSupply')
+          .withArgs(value, value - 1n);
+      });
+
+      it('recent checkpoints', async function () {
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
Consider adding tests for edge cases around minting, such as minting zero tokens or minting to the zero address.

Testing these scenarios will help verify that the contract enforces correct behavior for all minting inputs.

Suggested implementation:

```javascript
      it('minting zero tokens', async function () {
        await expect(this.token.$_mint(this.holder, 0n))
          .to.be.revertedWithCustomError(this.token, 'ERC20InvalidMintAmount')
          .withArgs(0n);
      });

      it('minting to zero address', async function () {
        const value = 1n;
        await expect(this.token.$_mint(ethers.constants.AddressZero, value))
          .to.be.revertedWithCustomError(this.token, 'ERC20InvalidReceiver')
          .withArgs(ethers.constants.AddressZero);
      });

      it('recent checkpoints', async function () {

```

- If your contract does not use custom errors named `ERC20InvalidMintAmount` or `ERC20InvalidReceiver`, replace them with the actual error names or revert messages your contract emits.
- If minting zero tokens is allowed, adjust the test to expect a successful mint instead of a revert.
- Ensure `ethers.constants.AddressZero` is available in your test context (import `ethers` from `hardhat` or `ethers` package if needed).
</issue_to_address>

## Security Issues

### Issue 1
<location> `test/token/ERC20/extensions/ERC20MultiVotes.test.js:50` </location>

<issue_to_address>
**security (generic-api-key):** Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.

*Source: gitleaks*
</issue_to_address>