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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

3xcalibur

34%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

3xcalibur

Final score:34%
Date:18 May 2023
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:NV
PQR Score:34%

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
#QuestionAnswer
44%
1.100%
2.0%
3.No
4.0%
5.0
43%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.0%
9.0%
0%
10.0%
11.0%
12.No
13.0%
14.No
15.No
65%
16.75%
17.0%
7%
18.0%
19.50%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.0%
24.0%
25.0%
50%
26.100
27.No
28.No
Total:34%

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

44%

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 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: 0%

Contract Router is used under 10 times a month, as indicated in the Appendix. There is virtually no activity.

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: No

3xcalibur is currently a closed-source protocol.

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: 0%

Because the protocol is closed-source, it is impossible to evaluate the 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

The 3xcalibur team is anonymous.

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

43%

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://3six9innovatio.gitbook.io/documentation/3six9-products/the-world-of-3xcalibur

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

Answer: Yes

3xcalibur provides a software architecture overview here.

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: 0%

There is no 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: 0%

There is no traceability between software documentation and implemented code, as there is no software documentation and the source code is closed-source.

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

0%

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

Answer: 0%

Since 3xcalibur's code is closed-source, it is impossible to evaluate their testing suite.

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: 0%

There is no apparent code coverage of 3xcalibur's code.

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: No

Since 3xcalibur's code is closed-source, we cannot verify this.

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%

There is no apparent detailed test report of 3xcalibur's code.

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

This protocol 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

3xcalibur's testnet is gated, and the deployments can therefore not be ascertained.

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

65%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 75%

3xcalibur has organized a Code4Arena auditing contest through which multiple fixes were subsequently introduced to the protocol's codebase. Additionally, 3xcalibur underwent a Omniscia audit. Most of the issues found were resolved, and both the audit contest and the Omniscia audit were performed before mainnet launch. However, because 3xcalibur's code is closed source, we cannot verify that the audited code is the source code being maintained & deployed today. As such, 25% will be deducted in accordance with our guidance.

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%

3xcalibur currently does not offer a 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

7%

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: 0%

There is no semblance of admin control information within 3xcalibur's documentation.

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: 50%

Code is immutable. This is not documented, however.  

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: 0%

While there is a governance mechanism within the protocol, it is unclear how much control it has. In addition, no information regarding ownership at a smart contract level is detailed within the 3xcalibur docs.

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: 0%

No smart contract change capability is mentioned in 3xcalibur's documentation.

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: 0%

No information regarding admin control exists.

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: 0%

No mention or proven existence of a pause control is evident.

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: 0%

3xcalibur does not provide any details regarding a timelock.

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 existence of a timelock is unclear, and so is its 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

Because 3xcalibur utilizes a stableswap architecture, there is no need for a traditional oracle. The pricing mechanisms regulate themselves via constant product formulas.

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

3xcalibur does not document they ways in which they mitigate front running possibilities.

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

While 3xcalibur infers that the lack of an oracle solves oracle-attributed exploits such as liquidity manipulation, they do not explicitly detail the mechanisms in which the protocol mitigates the possibility of a liquidity or flash loan manipulation.

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
1From Etherscan:
2
3contract Router {
4
5    struct route {
6        address from;
7        address to;
8        bool stable;
9    }
10
11    address public immutable factory;
12    IWETH public immutable weth;
13    uint internal constant MINIMUM_LIQUIDITY = 10**3;
14    bytes32 immutable pairCodeHash;
15
16    modifier ensure(uint deadline) {
17        require(deadline >= block.timestamp, 'BaseV1Router: EXPIRED');
18        _;
19    }
20
21    constructor(address _factory, address _weth) {
22        require(
23            _factory != address(0) &&
24            _weth != address(0),
25            "Router: zero address provided in constructor"
26        );
27        factory = _factory;
28        pairCodeHash = ISwapFactory(_factory).pairCodeHash();
29        weth = IWETH(_weth);
30    }
31
32    receive() external payable {
33        assert(msg.sender == address(weth)); // only accept ETH via fallback from the WETH contract
34    }
35
36    function sortTokens(address tokenA, address tokenB) public pure returns (address token0, address token1) {
37        require(tokenA != tokenB, 'BaseV1Router: IDENTICAL_ADDRESSES');
38        (token0, token1) = tokenA < tokenB ? (tokenA, tokenB) : (tokenB, tokenA);
39        require(token0 != address(0), 'BaseV1Router: ZERO_ADDRESS');
40    }
41
42    // calculates the CREATE2 address for a pair without making any external calls
43    function pairFor(address tokenA, address tokenB, bool stable) public view returns (address pair) {
44        (address token0, address token1) = sortTokens(tokenA, tokenB);
45        pair = address(uint160(uint256(keccak256(abi.encodePacked(
46            hex'ff',
47            factory,
48            keccak256(abi.encodePacked(token0, token1, stable)),
49            pairCodeHash // init code hash
50        )))));
51    }
52
53    // given some amount of an asset and pair reserves, returns an equivalent amount of the other asset
54    function quoteLiquidity(uint amountA, uint reserveA, uint reserveB) internal pure returns (uint amountB) {
55        require(amountA > 0, 'BaseV1Router: INSUFFICIENT_AMOUNT');
56        require(reserveA > 0 && reserveB > 0, 'BaseV1Router: INSUFFICIENT_LIQUIDITY');
57        amountB = amountA * reserveB / reserveA;
58    }
59
60    // fetches and sorts the reserves for a pair
61    function getReserves(address tokenA, address tokenB, bool stable) public view returns (uint reserveA, uint reserveB) {
62        (address token0,) = sortTokens(tokenA, tokenB);
63        (uint reserve0, uint reserve1,) = ISwapPair(pairFor(tokenA, tokenB, stable)).getReserves();
64        (reserveA, reserveB) = tokenA == token0 ? (reserve0, reserve1) : (reserve1, reserve0);
65    }
66
67    // performs chained getAmountOut calculations on any number of pairs
68    function getAmountOut(uint amountIn, address tokenIn, address tokenOut) external view returns (uint amount, bool stable) {
69        address pair = pairFor(tokenIn, tokenOut, true);
70        uint amountStable;
71        uint amountVolatile;
72        if (ISwapFactory(factory).isPair(pair)) {
73            amountStable = ISwapPair(pair).getAmountOut(amountIn, tokenIn);
74        }
75        pair = pairFor(tokenIn, tokenOut, false);
76        if (ISwapFactory(factory).isPair(pair)) {
77            amountVolatile = ISwapPair(pair).getAmountOut(amountIn, tokenIn);
78        }
79        return amountStable > amountVolatile ? (amountStable, true) : (amountVolatile, false);
80    }
81
82    // performs chained getAmountOut calculations on any number of pairs
83    function getAmountsOut(uint amountIn, route[] memory routes) public view returns (uint[] memory amounts) {
84        require(routes.length >= 1, 'BaseV1Router: INVALID_PATH');
85        amounts = new uint[](routes.length+1);
86        amounts[0] = amountIn;
87        for (uint i = 0; i < routes.length; i++) {
88            address pair = pairFor(routes[i].from, routes[i].to, routes[i].stable);
89            if (ISwapFactory(factory).isPair(pair)) {
90                amounts[i+1] = ISwapPair(pair).getAmountOut(amounts[i], routes[i].from);
91            }
92        }
93    }
94
95    function isPair(address pair) external view returns (bool) {
96        return ISwapFactory(factory).isPair(pair);
97    }
98
99    function quoteAddLiquidity(
100        address tokenA,
101        address tokenB,
102        bool stable,
103        uint amountADesired,
104        uint amountBDesired
105    ) external view returns (uint amountA, uint amountB, uint liquidity) {
106        // create the pair if it doesn't exist yet
107        address _pair = ISwapFactory(factory).getPair(tokenA, tokenB, stable);
108        (uint reserveA, uint reserveB) = (0,0);
109        uint _totalSupply = 0;
110        if (_pair != address(0)) {
111            _totalSupply = IERC20(_pair).totalSupply();
112            (reserveA, reserveB) = getReserves(tokenA, tokenB, stable);
113        }
114        if (reserveA == 0 && reserveB == 0) {
115            (amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBDesired);
116            liquidity = Math.sqrt(amountA * amountB) - MINIMUM_LIQUIDITY;
117        } else {
118
119            uint amountBOptimal = quoteLiquidity(amountADesired, reserveA, reserveB);
120            if (amountBOptimal <= amountBDesired) {
121                (amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBOptimal);
122                liquidity = Math.min(amountA * _totalSupply / reserveA, amountB * _totalSupply / reserveB);
123            } else {
124                uint amountAOptimal = quoteLiquidity(amountBDesired, reserveB, reserveA);
125                (amountA, amountB) = (amountAOptimal, amountBDesired);
126                liquidity = Math.min(amountA * _totalSupply / reserveA, amountB * _totalSupply / reserveB);
127            }
128        }
129    }
130
131    function quoteRemoveLiquidity(
132        address tokenA,
133        address tokenB,
134        bool stable,
135        uint liquidity
136    ) external view returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
137        // create the pair if it doesn't exist yet
138        address _pair = ISwapFactory(factory).getPair(tokenA, tokenB, stable);
139
140        if (_pair == address(0)) {
141            return (0,0);
142        }
143
144        (uint reserveA, uint reserveB) = getReserves(tokenA, tokenB, stable);
145        uint _totalSupply = IERC20(_pair).totalSupply();
146
147        amountA = liquidity * reserveA / _totalSupply; // using balances ensures pro-rata distribution
148        amountB = liquidity * reserveB / _totalSupply; // using balances ensures pro-rata distribution
149
150    }
151
N/A