If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.8)
Pods Finance
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.
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.
Smart Contracts & Team
97%
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 in the docs under contract addresses, as indicated in the Appendix.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
Contract ETHAdapter is used 8 times a week, as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
They have a GitHub.
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
With 620 commits and 5 branches this is a well used GitHub.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Only one team member was public on the GitHub but other team members have their full names on the Medium articles linked from the website footer. While this meets the requirements, it is still a bit awkward to find.
Documentation
100%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
This protocol's software architecture is documented in git books under Smart Contract Overview.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is good, explicit traceability between software documentation and implemented code. The actual line in the code is linked to the description.
Testing
87%
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 ___% 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. TtC = 3916 / 1217 = 252% ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── JavaScript 7 1217 164 377 676 87 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 7 1217 164 377 676 87 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $17,907 Estimated Schedule Effort 2.982421 months Estimated People Required 0.533441 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 41745 bytes, 0.042 megabytes (SI) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TypeScript 10 3355 687 205 2463 44 YAML 6 134 16 0 118 0 JavaScript 4 390 79 10 301 26 Markdown 1 37 4 0 33 0 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 21 3916 786 215 2915 70 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $83,074 Estimated Schedule Effort 5.343319 months Estimated People Required 1.381245 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 172402 bytes, 0.172 megabytes (SI) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There is a clearly indicated code coverage report.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: in readme
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
There is no test report, except the coverage report data, for which 70% is given as per guidance.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
This protocol has not apparently undergone formal verification.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
This protocol has been deployed to the Goerli testnet.
Security
96%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There are three audits (2 open Zep, 1 ABDK. All have significant corrections implemented before deployment. The first Open Zep audit had a number of critical findings, but these were all fixed, resulting in a redesign where it was all good.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
This protocol offers an active bug bounty of 5% TVL up to $100K
Admin Controls
100%
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 the Access Control. This was quick to find.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
The relevant contracts are clearly identified as immutable in the TLDR.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Contracts are immutable.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Smart contract change capabilities are clearly identified in TLDR of Access Controls.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
All the contracts are immutable and the control over fees are clearly indicated in plain language.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
This protocol does not have or want pause control. This is documented at this location.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
This protocol has no timelock documentation because the contracts are immutable.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
The timelock is irrelevant as the contracts are immutable.
Oracles
100%
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. These questions are explained in this document.
26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
The protocol's clearly documents that it is not exposed to Oracles by design.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
The protocol's clearly documents that it is not exposed to Oracles by design. Therefore front running is not a risk.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
The protocol’s clearly documents that it is not exposed to Oracles by design. Therefore flash loans are not a risk.
Appendices
1Enter appendix example code here