If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
PASS
The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.
Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.
Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.
This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)
Actually finding the addresses was not immediately direct, but was simple enough. There is no developer page on the website. After clicking on the GitHub icon on the footer of the webpage and reading the "readme" file, I could link to the docs for synthetics. From their the addresses were clearly in the Developer Resource section. The page has all the details that could be desired.
2. Is the code actively being used? (%)
Activity is well over 10 internal transactions a day on contract Address Resolver, as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)
Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No"
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
With 3,783 commits and 155 branches, this is a very healthy repo.
This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)
The teams names and roles are clearly in the GitHub repo.
For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)
8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
Full documentation is available.
9. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
The first impression is to give a very high score for commenting because comments are clear, detailed and included where they add value. The percentage of code to commenting is actually low compared to many other applications at 31%. Numbers in excess of 70% have been seen on well-documented other applications. Part of the reason may be that there is just so much code included. At 9,000 lines over 45 modules this is one of the largest applications audited to date. Based on the commenting the code percentage score of about 45% would be in line with other audits. Given the quality I will increase it to 65%.
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)
Each function is clearly documented. Next of the documentation is a link directly to the source code. This is exactly the type of traceability we are looking for.
11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
Clearly there is a full test suite. Test line to code ratio is 375%
This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.
12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
Code coverage for the deployed release is 96% as per GitHub CodeCov.
13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)
Sythetix has a full document on their automated test procedures.
14. Report of the results (%)
The automated code coverage report answers most of the questions. What is missing is a stand alone report indicating the pass of all tests and describing the few misses. But clearly, most questions are answered.
15. Formal Verification test done (%)
No evidence of Formal Verification was found.
16. Stress Testing environment (%)
The address page includes test addresses for Ropsten, Rinkeby and Kovan. The Ropsten address' at a minimum are still in regular use.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)
The audit history page shows regular audits taking place. There were two audits in 2021 and eight audits in 2020 alone (before mid-August) from two independent auditors. The audit results and documentation appears meticulous and complete.
18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)
200k active program
This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.
19. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)
Location: https://docs.synthetix.io/governance/
20. Is the information clear and complete (%)
21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)
There is no information on the capabilities of the admin controls or their impact on investments.
22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)
No pause controls are mentioned.
1// https://docs.synthetix.io/contracts/FeePool
2contract FeePool is Owned, Proxyable, SelfDestructible, LimitedSetup, MixinResolver, IFeePool {
3 using SafeMath for uint;
4 using SafeDecimalMath for uint;
5
6 // Exchange fee may not exceed 10%.
7 uint public constant MAX_EXCHANGE_FEE_RATE = 1e18 / 10;
8
9 // Where fees are pooled in sUSD.
10 address public constant FEE_ADDRESS = 0xfeEFEEfeefEeFeefEEFEEfEeFeefEEFeeFEEFEeF;
11
12 // sUSD currencyKey. Fees stored and paid in sUSD
13 bytes32 private sUSD = "sUSD";
14
15 // This struct represents the issuance activity that's happened in a fee period.
16 struct FeePeriod {
17 uint64 feePeriodId;
18 uint64 startingDebtIndex;
19 uint64 startTime;
20 uint feesToDistribute;
21 uint feesClaimed;
22 uint rewardsToDistribute;
23 uint rewardsClaimed;
24 }
25
26 // A staker(mintr) can claim from the previous fee period (7 days) only.
27 // Fee Periods stored and managed from [0], such that [0] is always
28 // the current active fee period which is not claimable until the
29 // public function closeCurrentFeePeriod() is called closing the
30 // current weeks collected fees. [1] is last weeks feeperiod
31 uint8 public constant FEE_PERIOD_LENGTH = 2;
32
33 FeePeriod[FEE_PERIOD_LENGTH] private _recentFeePeriods;
34 uint256 private _currentFeePeriod;
35
36 // How long a fee period lasts at a minimum. It is required for
37 // anyone to roll over the periods, so they are not guaranteed
38 // to roll over at exactly this duration, but the contract enforces
39 // that they cannot roll over any quicker than this duration.
40 uint public feePeriodDuration = 1 weeks;
41 / The fee period must be between 1 day and 60 days.
42 uint public constant MIN_FEE_PERIOD_DURATION = 1 days;
43 uint public constant MAX_FEE_PERIOD_DURATION = 60 days;
44
45 / Users are unable to claim fees if their collateralisation ratio drifts out of target treshold
46 uint public targetThreshold = (1 * SafeDecimalMath.unit()) / 100;
47
48 /* ========== MUTATIVE FUNCTIONS ========== */
49
50 /**
51 * @notice Logs an accounts issuance data per fee period
52 * @param account Message.Senders account address
53 * @param debtRatio Debt percentage this account has locked after minting or burning their synth
54 * @param debtEntryIndex The index in the global debt ledger. synthetixState.issuanceData(account)
55 * @dev onlyIssuer to call me on synthetix.issue() & synthetix.burn() calls to store the locked SNX
56 * per fee period so we know to allocate the correct proportions of fees and rewards per period
57 */
58 function appendAccountIssuanceRecord(
59 address account,
60 uint debtRatio,
61 uint debtEntryIndex
62 ) external onlyIssuer {
63 feePoolState().appendAccountIssuanceRecord(
64 account,
65 debtRatio,
66 debtEntryIndex,
67 _recentFeePeriodsStorage(0).startingDebtIndex
68 );
69
70 emitIssuanceDebtRatioEntry(account, debtRatio, debtEntryIndex, _recentFeePeriodsStorage(0).startingDebtIndex);
71 }
72
73 /**
74 * @notice Set the fee period duration
75 */
76 function setFeePeriodDuration(uint _feePeriodDuration) external optionalProxy_onlyOwner {
77 require(_feePeriodDuration >= MIN_FEE_PERIOD_DURATION, "value < MIN_FEE_PERIOD_DURATION");
78 require(_feePeriodDuration <= MAX_FEE_PERIOD_DURATION, "value > MAX_FEE_PERIOD_DURATION");
79
80 feePeriodDuration = _feePeriodDuration;
81
82 emitFeePeriodDurationUpdated(_feePeriodDuration);
83 }
Comments to Code: 1764 / 5683 = 31 %