Report an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

Aerodrome

15%

Process Quality Reviews

Aerodrome

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Aerodrome

Final score:15%

Date:14 Sep 2023

Audit Process:version 0.8

Author:Rex

PQR Score:30%

-15%(Penalty)

FAIL

Protocol Website:https://aerodrome.finance/

Security Incidents

Date:29 Nov 2023

Details: Small front end hack

Reference Link

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

Base

#QuestionAnswer

56%

1.100%

2.100%

3.No

4.0%

5.0

14%

6.Yes

7.No

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

11.0%

12.No

13.0%

14.No

15.No

16.0%

17.0%

46%

18.0%

19.50%

20.0%

21.100%

22.100%

23.0%

24.95%

25.0%

81%

26.50

27.Yes

28.Yes

Total:30%

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

56%

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 at https://aerodrome.finance/security#contracts .

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

Executing addresses could not be found

2. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 100%

Contract 0xcF77a3Ba9A5CA399B7c97c74d54e5b1Beb874E43 is used more than 25 times a day.

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

No activity

3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: No

No GitHub found

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.

For teams with private repositories.

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

Answer: 0%

No GitHub found.

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

Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?

Answer: 0

No documentation of the team. I guess they are anon.

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.

No public team members could be found.

Documentation

14%

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://aerodrome.finance/docs

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

Answer: No

This protocol's software architecture NOT is documented.

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.

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 software documentation. In the security section, the devs say Aerodrome and Velodrome are identical. There is no GitHub similarity to proves this (where there is a full formal code compare between Aerodrome and Velodrome. When you look at the names of contracts, there are not the same. The number of contracts are not the same and when I did a cursory check of Velodrome's VeArtProxy and Aerodrome's Art Proxy, the files do not look the same. Based on this we are considering the two protocol's different. If a protocol wants credit with being a fork of another protocol they should clearly prove it.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

All contracts and functions documented

80%

Only the major functions documented

79 - 1%

Estimate of the level of software documentation

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 cod as there is no code to verify.

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

No connection between documentation and code

Testing

0%

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

Answer: 0%

As noted below, we cosider the protocol's different. There are no tests for aerodrome. In the security section, the devs say Aerodrome and Velodrome are identical. There is no GitHub similarity to proves this (where there is a full formal code compare between Aerodrome and Velodrome. When you look at the names of contracts, there are not the same. The number of contracts are not the same and when I did a cursory check of Velodrome's VeArtProxy and Aerodrome's Art Proxy, the files do not look the same. Based on this we are considering the two protocol's different. If a protocol wants credit with being a fork of another protocol they should clearly prove it.

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

No tests obvious

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

Answer: 0%

There are no tests.

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

No test for coverage seen

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

Answer: No

There is no GitHub and no visible tests.

Score Guidance:

Yes

Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite

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%

No report visible.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Detailed test report as described below

70%

GitHub code coverage report visible

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

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

This protocol has no evidence of being been deployed to a testnet.

Score Guidance:

Yes

Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses

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%

In the security section, the devs say Aerodrome and Velodrome are identical. There is no GitHub similarity to proves this (where there is a full formal code compare between Aerodrome and Velodrome. When you look at the names of contracts, there are not the same. The number of contracts are not the same and when I did a cursory check of Velodrome's VeArtProxy and Aerodrome's Art Proxy, the files do not look the same. Based on this we are considering the two protocol's different. If a protocol wants credit with being a fork of another protocol they should clearly prove it. Therefore with no independent audits and no code to compare to a score of 0% is given.

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

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%

How can Aerodrome claim any credit of Velodrome's Bug Bounty program. Much of the value of a bug Bounty program is in confidential conversations with hackers looking for a bounty. Aerodrome will only hear about it after a disclosure is made public. Very little value and 0% points.

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

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

46%

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%

I think Aerodrome is immutable, as is Velodrome. But it is not mentioned anywhere, so we consider this no admin information.

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

Admin Control information could not be found

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

Answer: 50%

The relevant contracts are not identified as immutable. 50% as per guidance.

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

Admin control information could not be found

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

Answer: 0%

Ownership is not clearly indicated.

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)

Admin Control information could not be found

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

Answer: 100%

Smart contract change capabilities are not identified but code is immutable.

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

The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

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

Answer: 100%

This information is not available, but contracts are immutable.

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

No admin control information could be found

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

Answer: 0%

This protocol's pause control is not documented but there is an Emergency Council with limited powers.

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)

No transaction signing process evident

Evidence of audits of signers following the process add 20%

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 95%

Code is immutable so timelock is not required.

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

No Timelock information was documented

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

Answer: 0%

Code is immutable so timelock is not required.

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.

No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

Oracles

81%

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: 50

No oracle information was documented. However, as an AMM Velodrome / Solidly doesn't need an oracle - it uses x*y>=k and other generic pool formulas. However only 50% because we are not sure Aerodrome is Velodrome.

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.

No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

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

Answer: Yes

The Optimism/Base blockchain's inherent lack of an open mempool is itself enough to mitigate any possibilities of frontrunning the Velodrome 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.

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: Yes

Velodrome's/Aerodrome's documentation mentions that they use 30 mins TWAPs in order to mitigate against flash loan / liquidity attacks.

Score Guidance:

Yes

The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.

The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

null

1Enter appendix example code here

N/A