If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
PASS
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 review 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 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chains and team aspects. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)
The smart contract addresses are clearly labeled and easily found on the deployed contracts pages. They include addresses for key offerings such as staking, oracle, and more. All the addresses are publicly visible and verifiable on the relevant block explorer. For example: https://docs.lido.fi/deployed-contracts/
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Location: https://github.com/lidofinance/lido-dao/tree/master/contracts
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Lido consists of a DAO that includes various members with different backgrounds. The documentation page lists DAO members such as Semantic VC, ParaFi Capital, Libertus Capital, Bitscale Capital, StakeFish, StakingFacilities, Chorus, P2P Capital, and KR1. Additionally, key angel investors like Stani Kulechov of Aave, Banteg of Yearn, Will Harborne of Deversifi, Julien Bouteloup of Stake Capital, and Kain Warwick of Synthetix are mentioned.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
Devs responded within a day.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Location: https://whitepaper.io/document/0/lido-dao-whitepaper
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
There are some software architecture diagrams in the main contract documentation here: https://docs.lido.fi/contracts/lido This can be considered partial software architecture diagrams. We will get a 50% score. The documentation improves things but there is still not an over arching diagram and of course no requirements.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation. The best example is here: https://docs.lido.fi/contracts/lidohttps://docs.lido.fi/contracts/lido There are neighboring pages covering all functions.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
The documentation is quite good and refers back to the code frequently with some in-line examples. Based on the guidance this gives a score of 60%.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
100% Information is well organized, compartmentalized and easy to navigate
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
The test to code ratio is 315%, score 100% TtC = 44676 / 14144 = 315% ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── JavaScript 41 14144 1989 3925 8230 1007 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 41 14144 1989 3925 8230 1007 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $247,038 Estimated Schedule Effort 8.084717 months Estimated People Required 2.714665 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 604901 bytes, 0.605 megabytes (SI) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── C:\Users\Rex\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.9\Lido\Flattened>cd C:\Users\Rex\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.9\Lido\TestingEnv C:\Users\Rex\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.9\Lido\TestingEnv>scc.exe ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── JavaScript 163 44648 7111 1652 35885 781 JSON 7 28 0 0 28 0 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 170 44676 7111 1652 35913 781 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $1,160,405 Estimated Schedule Effort 14.553441 months Estimated People Required 7.083694 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 1980616 bytes, 1.981 megabytes (SI) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
50% No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a complete set of tests
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report was evident.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
Yes: https://github.com/lidofinance/audits/blob/main/Certora%20Lido%20V2%20Audit%20Report%2004-23.pdf
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There are a large list of audits: https://github.com/lidofinance/audits Multiple audits with resolutions; 100%
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
The readme summary of audits is not a matrix of applicability. It does not clearly specify which audits are applicable, though we would assume all of the two objects are applicable. Therefore, we will give a 50% score, as the readme summary certainly adds significant clarity.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
There is a $2 million active bug bounty which offers a 100% score. https://immunefi.com/bounty/lido/
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There is clearly some monitoring available : https://docs.lido.fi/guides/oracle-operator-manual/ and https://github.com/lidofinance/lido-oracle#alerts The documentation is a bit unclear on the exact use for these monitors and the incident response plan. For this reason, a 60% score is given.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
We could not find any documented front-end website monitoring. [...]
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.
19. Is the protocol code immutable or upgradeable? (%)
The code is upgradeable with roles. https://docs.lido.fi/guides/protocol-levers#a-note-on-upgradeability
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
100% Code is upgradeable and clearly explained in non technical terms
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
80% Admin addresses, roles and capabilities incompletely explained but good content https://docs.lido.fi/guides/address-ownership-guide
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
Signers are not clearly listed. It is mentioned the signers are verified via Etherscan. For this we will give a 20% score.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
No transaction signing policy could be found.
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.
24. Are Oracles relevant? (Y/N)
25. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
Oracles seem a bit different on Lido but are also well documented. 100%.
26. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Front running is specifically mitigated as indicated here: https://docs.lido.fi/contracts/deposit-security-module