If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
-5%(Penalty)
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 relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)
They can be found at https://dev.balancer.fi/references/contracts/contract-addresses, as indicated in the Appendix.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Balancer uses GitHub
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
At 900 commits and 7 branches, it's clear that Balancer's development history is well balanced.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Many of Balancer's team members are public.
The difference between this and the old link is solely the link. This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Location: https://docs.balancer.fi/
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
Balancer's software architecture is documented in full.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation in Balancer's developer docs.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is full and explicit traceability between Balancer's documented software functions and their respective locations within their GitHub source code.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 170% testing to code (TtC). This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However, the reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There is currently no visible code coverage of the Balancer v2 Monorepo. The Coveralls report from 8 months ago indicates a 96% code coverage, but we will not include this outdated report within this review. However, Balancer does earn itself 50% for this question due to having a solid testing suite in general.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/balancer-labs/balancer-v2-monorepo#build-and-test
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
An in-depth report of Balancer's testing methodology is documented here.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
Balancer has undergone formal verification.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
This protocol has been deployed to a testnet. Contracts on testnets can be verified.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
Balancer has been audited by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin and Certora before the protocol's v2 deployments.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $2.4m.
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.
18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?
Admin control information was well documented at this location. This was quick to find.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
Balancer's smart contracts are identified as immutable, as identified here. As we are currently past the initial 4 months of Balance v2 contract deployments, the contracts are effectively "unstoppable" i.e. immutable. This is because the MultiSig can only interact with protocol fees and arbitrary parameters that have nothing to do with the underlying logic or execution. Either way, this MultiSig has no admin rights and cannot operate without first going through a governance vote. Paired with the fact that Balancer is absolutely non-custodial, we consider the contracts immutable.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Balancer's ownership is clearly indicated in this location.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Balancer's smart contract change capabilities are identified in all contracts.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
This information is not in software specific language, because vault & weighted pools are now identified as immutable.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
Balancer no longer uses a pause control. This is adequately explained and justified here.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
This protocol has limited timelock documentation which can be found at this location. Although a duration is specified, this timelock does not seem to pertain to any governance-level activities. This information is also relevant to Balancer V1, and it is unclear if it persists throughout V2 As such, we will not be awarding points for this duration. However, the presence of a timelock functionality within Balancer is clear.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
The timelock is of a non-explained length.
This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. This is explained in this document.
26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
Balancer's oracle source, Uniswap TWAP, is fully documented at this location. In addition, contracts that use these oracles and the associated data refresh rates are identified.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
Balancer documents front running mitigation techniques through leveraging accumulators which is documented at this location.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Balancer documents no flash loan manipulation countermeasures. They justify this in identifying that flash loans are beneficial to its operation via Flash Swaps.
1// This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
2// it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
3// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
4// (at your option) any later version.
5
6// This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
7// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
8// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
9// GNU General Public License for more details.
10
11// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
12// along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
13
14pragma solidity 0.5.12;
15
16import "./BToken.sol";
17import "./BMath.sol";
18
19contract BPool is BBronze, BToken, BMath {
20
21 struct Record {
22 bool bound; // is token bound to pool
23 uint index; // private
24 uint denorm; // denormalized weight
25 uint balance;
26 }
27
28 event LOG_SWAP(
29 address indexed caller,
30 address indexed tokenIn,
31 address indexed tokenOut,
32 uint256 tokenAmountIn,
33 uint256 tokenAmountOut
34 );
35
36 event LOG_JOIN(
37 address indexed caller,
38 address indexed tokenIn,
39 uint256 tokenAmountIn
40 );
41
42 event LOG_EXIT(
43 address indexed caller,
44 address indexed tokenOut,
45 uint256 tokenAmountOut
46 );
47
48 event LOG_CALL(
49 bytes4 indexed sig,
50 address indexed caller,
51 bytes data
52 ) anonymous;
53
54 modifier _logs_() {
55 emit LOG_CALL(msg.sig, msg.sender, msg.data);
56 _;
57 }
58
59 modifier _lock_() {
60 require(!_mutex, "ERR_REENTRY");
61 _mutex = true;
62 _;
63 _mutex = false;
64 }
65
66 modifier _viewlock_() {
67 require(!_mutex, "ERR_REENTRY");
68 _;
69 }
70
71 bool private _mutex;
72
73 address private _factory; // BFactory address to push token exitFee to
74 address private _controller; // has CONTROL role
75 bool private _publicSwap; // true if PUBLIC can call SWAP functions
76
77 // `setSwapFee` and `finalize` require CONTROL
78 // `finalize` sets `PUBLIC can SWAP`, `PUBLIC can JOIN`
79 uint private _swapFee;
80 bool private _finalized;
81
82 address[] private _tokens;
83 mapping(address=>Record) private _records;
84 uint private _totalWeight;
85
86 constructor() public {
87 _controller = msg.sender;
88 _factory = msg.sender;
89 _swapFee = MIN_FEE;
90 _publicSwap = false;
91 _finalized = false;
92 }
93
94 function isPublicSwap()
95 external view
96 returns (bool)
97 {
98 return _publicSwap;
99 }
100
101 function isFinalized()
102 external view
103 returns (bool)
104 {
105 return _finalized;
106 }
107
108 function isBound(address t)
109 external view
110 returns (bool)
111 {
112 return _records[t].bound;
113 }
114
115 function getNumTokens()
116 external view
117 returns (uint)
118 {
119 return _tokens.length;
120 }
121
122 function getCurrentTokens()
123 external view _viewlock_
124 returns (address[] memory tokens)
125 {
126 return _tokens;
127 }
128
129 function getFinalTokens()
130 external view
131 _viewlock_
132 returns (address[] memory tokens)
133 {
134 require(_finalized, "ERR_NOT_FINALIZED");
135 return _tokens;
136 }
137
138 function getDenormalizedWeight(address token)
139 external view
140 _viewlock_
141 returns (uint)
142 {
143
144 require(_records[token].bound, "ERR_NOT_BOUND");
145 return _records[token].denorm;
146 }
147
148 function getTotalDenormalizedWeight()
149 external view
150 _viewlock_
151 returns (uint)
152 {
153 return _totalWeight;
154 }
155
156 function getNormalizedWeight(address token)
157 external view
158 _viewlock_
159 returns (uint)
160 {
161
162 require(_records[token].bound, "ERR_NOT_BOUND");
163 uint denorm = _records[token].denorm;
164 return bdiv(denorm, _totalWeight);
165 }
166
167 function getBalance(address token)
168 external view
169 _viewlock_
170 returns (uint)
171 {
172
173 require(_records[token].bound, "ERR_NOT_BOUND");
174 return _records[token].balance;
175 }
176
177 function getSwapFee()
178 external view
179 _viewlock_
180 returns (uint)
181 {
182 return _swapFee;
183 }
184
185 function getController()
186 external view
187 _viewlock_
188 returns (address)
189 {
190 return _controller;
191 }
192
193 function setSwapFee(uint swapFee)
194 external
195 _logs_
196 _lock_
197 {
198 require(!_finalized, "ERR_IS_FINALIZED");
199 require(msg.sender == _controller, "ERR_NOT_CONTROLLER");
200 require(swapFee >= MIN_FEE, "ERR_MIN_FEE");
201 require(swapFee <= MAX_FEE, "ERR_MAX_FEE");
202 _swapFee = swapFee;
203 }
204
205 function setController(address manager)
206 external
207 _logs_
208 _lock_
209 {
210 require(msg.sender == _controller, "ERR_NOT_CONTROLLER");
211 _controller = manager;
212 }
213
214 function setPublicSwap(bool public_)
215 external
216 _logs_
217 _lock_
218 {
219 require(!_finalized, "ERR_IS_FINALIZED");
220 require(msg.sender == _controller, "ERR_NOT_CONTROLLER");
221 _publicSwap = public_;
222 }
223
224 function finalize()
225 external
226 _logs_
227 _lock_
228 {
229 require(msg.sender == _controller, "ERR_NOT_CONTROLLER");
230 require(!_finalized, "ERR_IS_FINALIZED");
231 require(_tokens.length >= MIN_BOUND_TOKENS, "ERR_MIN_TOKENS");
232
233 _finalized = true;
234 _publicSwap = true;
235
236 _mintPoolShare(INIT_POOL_SUPPLY);
237 _pushPoolShare(msg.sender, INIT_POOL_SUPPLY);
238 }