If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
FAIL
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? (%)
They can be found at https://aerodrome.finance/security#contracts .
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
Contract 0xcF77a3Ba9A5CA399B7c97c74d54e5b1Beb874E43 is used more than 25 times a day.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
No GitHub found
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
No GitHub found.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
No documentation of the team. I guess they are anon.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Location: https://aerodrome.finance/docs
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
This protocol's software architecture NOT is documented.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
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.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is no traceability between software documentation and implemented cod as there is no code to verify.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
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.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There are no tests.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
There is no GitHub and no visible tests.
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No report visible.
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)
This protocol has no evidence of being been deployed to a testnet.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
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.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
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.
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?
I think Aerodrome is immutable, as is Velodrome. But it is not mentioned anywhere, so we consider this no admin information.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
The relevant contracts are not identified as immutable. 50% as per guidance.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Ownership is not clearly indicated.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Smart contract change capabilities are not identified but code is immutable.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
This information is not available, but contracts are immutable.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
This protocol's pause control is not documented but there is an Emergency Council with limited powers.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
Code is immutable so timelock is not required.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
Code is immutable so timelock is not required.
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? (%)
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.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
The Optimism/Base blockchain's inherent lack of an open mempool is itself enough to mitigate any possibilities of frontrunning the Velodrome protocol.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Velodrome's/Aerodrome's documentation mentions that they use 30 mins TWAPs in order to mitigate against flash loan / liquidity attacks.
1Enter appendix example code here