If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
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 2021. 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? (%)
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
With 862 commits and 29 branches, this is a healthy repo.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
We found more than2 full names of devs on the Github contributors list.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
This protocol's software architecture is documented in the Protocol (V2) Contract Architecture.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation. There are copious Spec compliant comments in the code and top level explanations of variables in the GitBook.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is limited traceability between software documentation and implemented code. The gitbook explanation does not refer to the code much. You have to look at the code directly, which is not traceability.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
The Foundry test results do not show code coverage so the default 50% score on the basis of a good test suite.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/PeggyJV/cellar-contracts
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
The Foundry test outputs give a clear indication that the tests pass. It is not a dedicated test report, but it is close.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
This protocol has not undergone formal verification.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
There is no evidence of test network deployment.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $50K Score 50% as per guidance.
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? (%)
The relevant contracts are not identified as immutable as identified here. Based on the code, we think each cellar deployment is immutable but the documentation does NOT say so. 50% score as per guidance.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Ownership is not really clearly indicated in this location. . They indicate the power of governance clearly. In the description of "OnlyOwner", it is indicated changes are actually instigated on the Sommelier Cosmos chain that then send the deployment via the Gravity Bridge. So ownership becomes who runs the Steward that deploys to Gravity Bridge. After some digging, it appears functionally to be an EOA, owned by Sommelier. After all this, 50% score.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Smart contract change capabilities are changeable via an effective EOA that is not well documented.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
This information is described in clear language. It does not really describe it as per an investors funds, so only a 50% score.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
This protocol's does not appear to have a pause control.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
This protocol has no timelock documentation. There is a deployed timelock contract, but we don't know where it is used what the delay is.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
The timelock is of a unknown relevant 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. These questions are explained in this document.
26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
The protocol's oracle source is well documented at this location. The contracts dependent are identified. There is relevant software function documentation.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
This protocol documents don't discuss front running mitigation techniques.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
This protocol documents does not discuss flashloan countermeasures.
1Enter appendix example code here