If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
Convex
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.
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.
- Here are my smart contract on the blockchain(s)
- Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do
- Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contracts
- Here are all the security steps I took to safeguard these contracts
- Here is an explanation of the control I have to change these smart contracts
- Here is how these smart contracts get information from outside the blockchain (if applicable)
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.
Code and Team
67%
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 protocol's smart contract addresses are clearly labelled and easily accessible on the protocol's documentation page under the section titled "Contract Addresses". All the contract addresses that enable the protocol's primary functionalities, such as Booster(main deposit contract), Voter Proxy(whitelist contract), CVX, cvxCRV, CRV Depositor, Reward Factory, Token Factory, Stash Factory, CVX Rewards, cvxCRV Rewards, Pool Manager, and Pool Manager Proxy, are listed with their respective addresses.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
GitHub link is on the home page.
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
The convex team is anon.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
No response from devs for three days.
Code Documentation
44%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
No white paper could be found.
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
No documentation describing the software architecture of the protocol was found. The documents provided do not contain any clear detailing of the software functions used in contracts or their operations. Also, there are no diagrams showing smart contract interactions or any written explanations of these interactions.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
In the Integration Docs section at the bottom of the Gitbook there are function descriptions for the major functions in the Convex protocol. Not all functions are detailed only the top elements. As per guidance this gives a score of 80%.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
Based on the provided information, it can be observed that the documentation does make reference to the corresponding source code on GitHub, however, it does not provide direct traceable links or identifiers. It provides information on audits that have been performed, as well as references to tests made via mainnet forking on their GitHub repository. It points users in the direction of the source code but falls short of providing explicit, traceable connections from requirements to code, tests, and test results.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
Information is well organized, compartmentalized and easy to navigate
Testing
49%
This section covers the testing process of the protocol’s smart contract code previous to its deployment on the mainnet. The document explaining these questions is here.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Test to Code is 11591 / 12398 = 93% which gives a score of 80%
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There is no evident code coverage report and the level of testing is lower than our preferred. This drives a score of 30%.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No detail report is evident.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No formal verification test report can be seen.
Security
84%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
Convex Finance has undergone multiple audits prior to launch. The audits were performed by MixBytes and PeckShield, both external audit firms. MixBytes performed an audit on the overall platform while PeckShield conducted an audit specifically for the staking contracts related to Frax Finance pools. The audit reports are publicly available, indicating transparency and adherence to best practices in the DeFi space. One audit found major issues, which were fixed.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
As there are only two audits, there is no need for a matrix of audit applicability. This allows a 100% score.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
A self managed bug bounty program with the maximum payout of $250,000. As per our guidance this brings a score of 60%.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There is no evidence of security protocol monitoring that I could find in the documentation.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
The provided documentation does not mention any of the required security measures such as DDOS Protection, DNS steps to protect the domain, Intrusion detection protection on the front end, or Unwanted front-end modification detection. The documentation does mention a bug bounty program and an external security audit, but these do not specifically address front-end monitoring and thus do not fulfill the requirements of this question. [...]
Admin Controls
76%
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 appears immutable.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
50% Code is immutable but this is not mentioned clearly in the documentation
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
100% Admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained In the documentation.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
60% All signers of the admin addresses are clearly listed. There is no evidence that the signers are provably distinct humans.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
There is no evidence of a transaction signing policy.