logo
bg_imgbg_imgbg_imgbg_img
exclamation mark iconReport an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

close icon
Name
Email
Your message
arrow-left

dHEDGE v2

76%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.7)

dHEDGE v2

Final score:76%
Date:21 Sep 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:76%

PASS

Scoring Appendix

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.

The blockchain used by this protocol
Ethereum
Polygon
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
86%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.57%
10.60%
44%
11.40%
12.76%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.100%
93%
17.100%
18.40%
36%
19.70%
20.60%
21.30%
22.0%
Total:76%

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.

  • Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
  • You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

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.

Code And Team

100%

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? (%)

Answer: 100%

They are available at website https://github.com/dhedge/V2-Public/blob/master/publish/matic/versions.json#L338, in mainnet.json, as indicated in the Appendix. Note: Although it is in a .json file, there is a hyperlink in the dHedge documentation titled "dHedge V2 Contracts" that leads you straight to it, hence the 100%

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc
20%
Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find
0%
Executing addresses could not be found

2. Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 25 transactions a day on contract 0xca1207647Ff814039530D7d35df0e1Dd2e91Fa84, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
More than 10 transactions a day
70%
More than 10 transactions a week
40%
More than 10 transactions a month
10%
Less than 10 transactions a month
0%
No activity

3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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"

Score Guidance:
Yes
There is 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.
No
For teams with private repositories.

4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 100%

The repository has 781 commits with 3 branches, making this a healthy repository.

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).

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches
70%
Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches
50%
Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches
30%
Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches
0%
Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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".

Documentation

86%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

dHedge's basic software functions are well explained in its[ documentation.](Note: Although it is in a .json file, there is a hyperlink in the dHedge documentation titled "dHedge V2 Contracts" that leads you straight to it, hence the 100%)

8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 100%

A second gitbook details every deployed contract with a clear explanation on each respective contract's function.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All contracts and functions documented
80%
Only the major functions documented
79 - 1%
Estimate of the level of software documentation
0%
No software documentation

9. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 57%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 57% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code
90 - 70%
CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code
60 - 20%
CtC > 20 Some useful commenting
0%
CtC < 20 No useful commenting

10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 60%

There is strong association between the code and the docs, but there is no explicit traceability between the docs and the github repository.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code
60%
Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability
40%
Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions
0%
No connection between documentation and code

Testing

44%

11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

Answer: 40%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 61% 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 reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible
80%
TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible
40%
TtC < 80% Some tests visible
0%
No tests obvious

12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 76%

An audit conducted by Iosiro found the code coverage to be "satisfactory", though it recommends enhancing this test suite. A percentage of 76% code coverage was given.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documented full coverage
99 - 51%
Value of test coverage from documented results
50%
No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/dhedge/V2-Public

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no report of these test results.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

15. Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

No formal verification was found.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

​Testing has been conducted on the Kovan testnet.

Security

93%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 100%

Iosiro conducted an audit before the code was deployed, and the results are public. CertiK did too.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code.

18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 40%

There is a bug bounty of up to $50,000 that is not an active program.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below)
90%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program
80%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k
70%
Bounty is 100k or over AND active program
60%
Bounty is 100k or over
50%
Bounty is 50k or over AND active program
40%
Bounty is 50k or over
20%
Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k
0%
No bug bounty program offered
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Access Controls

36%

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 (%)

Answer: 70%

Admin control information was found under "dHEDGE token". Even though they have a governance section, it does not explicitly state the degree of control that is exerted over the contracts, hence the 70%.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

20. Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 60%

Contract upgradeability and change potential is intended through the description of user voting power at https://docs.dhedge.org/dht/introduction

Percentage Score Guidance:
All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 30%

The admin control information explains their software well, but does not necessarily explain why and how user investments are/stay safe.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software language
30%
Description all in software specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no documented pause control.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months
80%
Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests
40%
Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests
0%
Pause control not documented or explained

Appendices

 The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.

Email: rex@defisafety.com
Twitter: @defisafety

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education.  It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process.  Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.
I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development. DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

1// @title Pool Factory
2// @dev A Factory to spawn pools
3contract PoolFactory is
4  PausableUpgradeable,
5  ProxyFactory,
6  IHasDaoInfo,
7  IHasFeeInfo,
8  IHasAssetInfo,
9  IHasGuardInfo,
10  IHasPausable
11{
12  using SafeMathUpgradeable for uint256;
13  using AddressHelper for address;
1415  event FundCreated(
16    address fundAddress,
17    bool isPoolPrivate,
18    string fundName,
19    string managerName,
20    address manager,
21    uint256 time,
22    uint256 managerFeeNumerator,
23    uint256 managerFeeDenominator
24  );
2526  event DAOAddressSet(address daoAddress);
2728  event GovernanceAddressSet(address governanceAddress);
2930  event DaoFeeSet(uint256 numerator, uint256 denominator);
3132  event ExitFeeSet(uint256 numerator, uint256 denominator);
3334  event ExitCooldownSet(uint256 cooldown);
3536  event MaximumSupportedAssetCountSet(uint256 count);
3738  event LogUpgrade(address indexed manager, address indexed pool);
3940  event SetPoolManagerFee(uint256 numerator, uint256 denominator);
4142  event SetMaximumManagerFee(uint256 numerator, uint256 denominator);
4344  event SetMaximumManagerFeeNumeratorChange(uint256 amount);
4546  event SetAssetHandler(address assetHandler);
4748  event SetPoolStorageVersion(uint256 poolStorageVersion);
4950  event SetManagerFeeNumeratorChangeDelay(uint256 delay);
5152  address[] public deployedFunds;
5354  address public override daoAddress;
55  address public governanceAddress;
5657  address internal _assetHandler;
58  uint256 internal _daoFeeNumerator;
59  uint256 internal _daoFeeDenominator;
6061  mapping(address => bool) public isPool;
6263  uint256 private _MAXIMUM_MANAGER_FEE_NUMERATOR;
64  uint256 private _MANAGER_FEE_DENOMINATOR;
6566  uint256 internal _exitCooldown;
6768  uint256 internal _maximumSupportedAssetCount;
6970  mapping(address => uint256) public poolVersion;
71  uint256 public poolStorageVersion;
7273  uint256 public override maximumManagerFeeNumeratorChange;
74  uint256 public override managerFeeNumeratorChangeDelay;
7576  /// @notice Initialize the factory
77  /// @param _poolLogic The pool logic address
78  /// @param _managerLogic The manager logic address
79  /// @param assetHandler The address of the asset handler
80  /// @param _daoAddress The address of the DAO
81  /// @param _governanceAddress The address of the governance contract
82  function initialize(
83    address _poolLogic,
84    address _managerLogic,
85    address assetHandler,
86    address _daoAddress,
87    address _governanceAddress
88  ) external initializer {
89    __ProxyFactory_init(_poolLogic, _managerLogic);
90    __Pausable_init();
9192    _setAssetHandler(assetHandler);
9394    _setDAOAddress(_daoAddress);
9596    _setGovernanceAddress(_governanceAddress);
9798    _setMaximumManagerFee(5000, 10000);
99100    _setDaoFee(10, 100); // 10%
101    _setExitCooldown(1 days);
102    setManagerFeeNumeratorChangeDelay(4 weeks);
103    setMaximumManagerFeeNumeratorChange(1000);
104105    _setMaximumSupportedAssetCount(10);
106107    _setPoolStorageVersion(230); // V2.3.0;
108  }
109110  /// @notice Function to create a new fund
111  /// @param _privatePool A boolean indicating whether the fund is private or not
112  /// @param _manager A manager address
113  /// @param _managerName The name of the manager
114  /// @param _fundName The name of the fund
115  /// @param _fundSymbol The symbol of the fund
116  /// @param _managerFeeNumerator The numerator of the manager fee
117  /// @param _supportedAssets An array of supported assets
118  /// @return fund Address of the fund
119  function createFund(
120    bool _privatePool,
121    address _manager,
122    string memory _managerName,
123    string memory _fundName,
124    string memory _fundSymbol,
125    uint256 _managerFeeNumerator,
126    IHasSupportedAsset.Asset[] memory _supportedAssets
127  ) external returns (address fund) {
128    require(!paused(), "contracts paused");
129    require(_supportedAssets.length <= _maximumSupportedAssetCount, "maximum assets reached");
130    require(_managerFeeNumerator <= _MAXIMUM_MANAGER_FEE_NUMERATOR, "invalid manager fee");
131132    bytes memory poolLogicData =
133      abi.encodeWithSignature(
134        "initialize(address,bool,string,string)",
135        address(this),
136        _privatePool,
137        _fundName,
138        _fundSymbol
139      );
140141    fund = deploy(poolLogicData, 2);
142143    bytes memory managerLogicData =
144      abi.encodeWithSignature(
145        "initialize(address,address,string,address,uint256,(address,bool)[])",
146        address(this),
147        _manager,
148        _managerName,
149        fund,
150        _managerFeeNumerator,
151        _supportedAssets
152      );
153154    address managerLogic = deploy(managerLogicData, 1);
155    // Ignore return value as want it to continue regardless
156    IPoolLogic(fund).setPoolManagerLogic(managerLogic);
157158    deployedFunds.push(fund);
159    isPool[fund] = true;
160161    poolVersion[fund] = poolStorageVersion;
162163    emit FundCreated(
164      fund,
165      _privatePool,
166      _fundName,
167      _managerName,
168      _manager,
169      block.timestamp,
170      _managerFeeNumerator,
171      _MANAGER_FEE_DENOMINATOR
172    );
173  }
174

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
23
4609
778
1388
2443
258

Comments to Code: 1388 / 2443 =  57 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
3
1935
330
100
1505
0

Tests to Code: 1505 / 2443 = 62 %