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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Synapse

44%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Synapse

Final score:44%
Date:18 Jun 2023
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:NV
PQR Score:44%

FAIL

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
Arbitrum
Avalanche
BnB Smart Chain
Cronos
Ethereum
Fantom
Moonriver
Polygon
Aurora
Harmony
Optimism
Moonbeam
Metis
#QuestionAnswer
78%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.0
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
66%
10.100%
11.80%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.No
0%
16.0%
17.0%
26%
18.20%
19.0%
20.50%
21.50%
22.30%
23.40%
24.30%
25.0%
50%
26.100
27.No
28.No
Total:44%

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

78%

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? (%)

Answer: 100%

They can easily be found here, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, 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. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 100%

Contract SynapseBridge on Ethereum is used well over 100 times a day, 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. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Synapse is fully open-source here

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%

With 614 commits and 62 branches, Synapse has an exceptional development history

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)?

Answer: 0

Synapse is comprised of anonymous contributors.

Score Guidance:
100%
At least two names can be easily found in the protocol's website, documentation or medium. These are then confirmed by the personal websites of the individuals / their linkedin / twitter.
50%
At least one public name can be found to be working on the protocol.
0%
No public team members could be found.

Documentation

94%

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

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

Answer: Yes

Location: https://docs.synapseprotocol.com/

7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is extensively documented in their GitHub docs.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The documents identify software architecture and contract interaction through any of the following: diagrams, arrows, specific reference to software functions or a written explanation on how smart contracts interact.
No
Protocols receive a "no" if none of these are included.

8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

There is 100% coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation.

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. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 60%

There is implicit traceability between software documentation and implemented code insofar as the documentation does not contain direct hyperlinks to the source code, but only cites it.

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

66%

10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 124% 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.

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

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 80%

While Synapse's official coveralls report obtained a mere score of 27%, their GitHub runs consist in frequent and consistent coverall runs. In combination with their above average testing suite, we are confident in giving Synapse a 80% score for this question. Synapse should fix their currently failing runs on GitHub to get the remaining points.

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 complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/synapsecns/synapse-contracts/tree/master/scripts

Score Guidance:
Yes
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite
No
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 0%

Since most of Synapse's recent GitHub runs have failed, and the ones that have passed are old enough to have had their logs expire, there is inherently a lack of visible test results in Synapse's software repository. And, while there is a coveralls report, it is very outdated.

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

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Synapse has not undergone formal verification.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available
No
Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: No

There is no evidence of Synapse deploying to a testnet.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses
No
Protocol has not proved their testnet usage by providing the addresses

Security

0%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 0%

All of the public audits pertaining to the Synapse AMM are of the obsolete Nerve Finance contracts, or are Saddle Finance ones performed by Quantstamp and OpenZeppelin. However, Synapse is not a 1:1 fork of Saddle, and therefore certain aspects of Synapse do not have their audits viewable publicly. And, because no additional context is provided via a changelog or an otherwise detailed explanation of what was forked, what wasn't, and which specific components are audited/unaudited, we are giving a 0% here. Note that no Synapse audits of the bridging smart contracts are publicly available, and this is concerning.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and the audit findings are public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and audit findings are public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. The Audit report is public.
65%
Code is forked from an already audited protocol and a changelog is provided explaining why forked code was used and what changes were made. This changelog must justify why the changes made do not affect the audit.
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes are needed but not implemented.
30%
Audit(s) performed are low-quality and do not indicate proper due diligence.
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public OR smart contract address' not found.
Deduct 25% if the audited code is not available for comparison.

17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 0%

Synapse currently does not offer an active bug bounty 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 / the bug bounty program is dead
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.

Admin Controls

26%

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?

Answer: 20%

Synapse's admin control information isn't really explicitly established via documentation. The protocol is clearly upgradeable, but this is communicated via the technical docs and previous governance votes. Synapse does not clearly established which contracts are upgradeable or not, what the extent of upgradeability is, what kind of power the admins have, etc.

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

19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)

Answer: 0%

Again, although protocol upgradeability is evident, Synapse does not formally detail which contracts are upgradeable or not. It is very informal, and fundamentally lacks clarity. No points can be given here.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Both the contract documentation and the smart contract code state that the code is not upgradeable or immutable.
80%
All Contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not)
50%
Code is immutable but not mentioned anywhere in the documentation
0%
Admin control information could not be found

20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)

Answer: 50%

While it is clear that the protocol is controlled by the DAO, it is unclear if admins have completely relinquished any powers of their own. In any case, the code certainly contains defined ownership parameters. Synapse should create a concrete doc in which they formally and explicitly go over this.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
50%
The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 50%

A semblance of smart contract upgrade capability is visible in Synapse's past governance votes. However, the parameters of the upgradeability extent is not clearly defined anywhere.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change for all smart contracts
50%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change in some, but not all contracts
0%
The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)

Answer: 30%

This information is all in software specific language.

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

23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)

Answer: 40%

Synapse's pause control is mentioned but not clearly detailed.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If immutable and no changes possible
100%
If admin control is fully via governance
80%
Robust transaction signing process (7 or more elements)
70%
Adequate transaction signing process (5 or more elements)
60%
Weak transaction signing process (3 or more elements)
0%
No transaction signing process evident
Evidence of audits of signers following the process add 20%

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 30%

A timelock is identified in Synapse's docs, but its duration and the smart contracts it applies to are not clearly defined.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documentation identifies and explains why the protocol does not need a Timelock OR Timelock documentation identifies its duration, which contracts it applies to and justifies this time period.
60%
A Timelock is identified and its duration is specified
30%
A Timelock is identified
0%
No Timelock information was documented

25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)

Answer: 0%

The Synapse timelock is of an undefined duration.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Timelock is between 48 hours to 1 week OR justification as to why no Timelock is needed / is outside this length.
50%
Timelock is less than 48 hours or greater than 1 week.
0%
No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

Oracles

50%

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? (%)

Answer: 100

Synapse uses the stableswap equations in order to regulate price information.

Score Guidance:
100%
If it uses one, the Oracle is specified. The contracts dependent on the oracle are identified. Basic software functions are identified (if the protocol provides its own price feed data). Timeframe of price feeds are identified. OR The reason as to why the protocol does not use an Oracle is identified and explained.
75%
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.
50%
Only the Oracle source is identified.
0%
No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Synapse does not explain how they mitigate the possibility of front running within the protocol.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.
No
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Synapse does not document how they mitigate the possibility or extent of a liquidity manipulation/flash loan attack.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.
No
The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

null
1contract SynapseBridge is Initializable, AccessControlUpgradeable, ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable, PausableUpgradeable {
2    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
3    using SafeERC20 for IERC20Mintable;
4    using SafeMath for uint256;
5
6    bytes32 public constant NODEGROUP_ROLE = keccak256("NODEGROUP_ROLE");
7    bytes32 public constant GOVERNANCE_ROLE = keccak256("GOVERNANCE_ROLE");
8
9    mapping(address => uint256) private fees;
10
11    uint256 public startBlockNumber;
12    uint256 public constant bridgeVersion = 6;
13    uint256 public chainGasAmount;
14    address payable public WETH_ADDRESS;
15
16    mapping(bytes32 => bool) private kappaMap;
17
18    receive() external payable {}
19
20    function initialize() external initializer {
21        startBlockNumber = block.number;
22        _setupRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE, msg.sender);
23        __AccessControl_init();
24    }
25
26    function setChainGasAmount(uint256 amount) external {
27        require(hasRole(GOVERNANCE_ROLE, msg.sender), "Not governance");
28        chainGasAmount = amount;
29    }
30
31    function setWethAddress(address payable _wethAddress) external {
32        require(hasRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE, msg.sender), "Not admin");
33        WETH_ADDRESS = _wethAddress;
34    }
35
36    function addKappas(bytes32[] calldata kappas) external {
37        require(hasRole(GOVERNANCE_ROLE, msg.sender), "Not governance");
38        for (uint256 i = 0; i < kappas.length; ++i) {
39            kappaMap[kappas[i]] = true;
40        }
41    }
42
43    event TokenDeposit(address indexed to, uint256 chainId, IERC20 token, uint256 amount);
44    event TokenRedeem(address indexed to, uint256 chainId, IERC20 token, uint256 amount);
45    event TokenWithdraw(address indexed to, IERC20 token, uint256 amount, uint256 fee, bytes32 indexed kappa);
46    event TokenMint(address indexed to, IERC20Mintable token, uint256 amount, uint256 fee, bytes32 indexed kappa);
47    event TokenDepositAndSwap(
48        address indexed to,
49        uint256 chainId,
50        IERC20 token,
51        uint256 amount,
52        uint8 tokenIndexFrom,
53        uint8 tokenIndexTo,
54        uint256 minDy,
55        uint256 deadline
56    );
57    event TokenMintAndSwap(
58        address indexed to,
59        IERC20Mintable token,
60        uint256 amount,
61        uint256 fee,
62        uint8 tokenIndexFrom,
63        uint8 tokenIndexTo,
64        uint256 minDy,
65        uint256 deadline,
66        bool swapSuccess,
67        bytes32 indexed kappa
68    );
69    event TokenRedeemAndSwap(
70        address indexed to,
71        uint256 chainId,
72        IERC20 token,
73        uint256 amount,
74        uint8 tokenIndexFrom,
75        uint8 tokenIndexTo,
76        uint256 minDy,
77        uint256 deadline
78    );
79    event TokenRedeemAndRemove(
80        address indexed to,
81        uint256 chainId,
82        IERC20 token,
83        uint256 amount,
84        uint8 swapTokenIndex,
85        uint256 swapMinAmount,
86        uint256 swapDeadline
87    );
88    event TokenWithdrawAndRemove(
89        address indexed to,
90        IERC20 token,
91        uint256 amount,
92        uint256 fee,
93        uint8 swapTokenIndex,
94        uint256 swapMinAmount,
95        uint256 swapDeadline,
96        bool swapSuccess,
97        bytes32 indexed kappa
98    );
99
100    // v2 events
101    event TokenRedeemV2(bytes32 indexed to, uint256 chainId, IERC20 token, uint256 amount);
102
103    // VIEW FUNCTIONS ***/
104    function getFeeBalance(address tokenAddress) external view returns (uint256) {
105        return fees[tokenAddress];
106    }
107
108    function kappaExists(bytes32 kappa) external view returns (bool) {
109        return kappaMap[kappa];
110    }
111
112    // FEE FUNCTIONS ***/
113    /**
114     * * @notice withdraw specified ERC20 token fees to a given address
115     * * @param token ERC20 token in which fees acccumulated to transfer
116     * * @param to Address to send the fees to
117     */
118    function withdrawFees(IERC20 token, address to) external whenNotPaused {
119        require(hasRole(GOVERNANCE_ROLE, msg.sender), "Not governance");
120        require(to != address(0), "Address is 0x000");
121        if (fees[address(token)] != 0) {
122            token.safeTransfer(to, fees[address(token)]);
123            fees[address(token)] = 0;
124        }
125    }
126
127    // PAUSABLE FUNCTIONS ***/
128    function pause() external {
129        require(hasRole(GOVERNANCE_ROLE, msg.sender), "Not governance");
130        _pause();
131    }
132
133    function unpause() external {
134        require(hasRole(GOVERNANCE_ROLE, msg.sender), "Not governance");
135        _unpause();
136    }
137
138    /**
139     * @notice Relays to nodes to transfers an ERC20 token cross-chain
140     * @param to address on other chain to bridge assets to
141     * @param chainId which chain to bridge assets onto
142     * @param token ERC20 compatible token to deposit into the bridge
143     * @param amount Amount in native token decimals to transfer cross-chain pre-fees
144     **/
145    function deposit(
146        address to,
147        uint256 chainId,
148        IERC20 token,
149        uint256 amount
150    ) external nonReentrant whenNotPaused {
151        emit TokenDeposit(to, chainId, token, amount);
152        token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
153    }
154

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
33
7285
670
1923
5834
4700
401

Tests to Code: 5834 / 4700 = 124 %