If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
Ether.fi
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
83%
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? (%)
Reasonably easy. In the docs go under contracts and integrations, then Deployed contracts.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Yes the link is clearly indicated in the footer of the homepage.
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
The team is listed in the white paper.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
No response from the devs.
Code Documentation
35%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Location: https://etherfi.gitbook.io/etherfi/ether.fi-whitepaper
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
There are basic software architecture diagrams in the white paper (which is basically part of the git book). It does not have much in the way of links to the software. For this a score of 75% is given.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There does not appear to be any dedicated software documentation. The smart contracts themselves have virtually no commenting. This leads to a score of 0%.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
With no software documentation, trace ability is impossible. This gives a score of 0%.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
With no software documentation, the resulting score is 0%. This question is for software documentation only.
Testing
64%
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 17,798 / 14,008 = 127% which gives a score of 100%
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There does not appear to be any coverage data but there are clearly comprehensive tests. This gives a score of 50% as per our guidance.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report is evident.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No evidence of formal verification was found.
Security
80%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
Ether.fi has multiple audits performed before deployment where issues were resolved before the contracts were deployed. It is slightly concerning though that there were high number of major issues found (though they were resolved). In addition, the code was considered reasonably complex with multiple external calls in the Solidified audit.
The major issues were virtually always resolved so we shall not reduce the score from 100%.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
With just three audits, and matrix of audit applicability is not required. A default score of 100% is given.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
But there are plans to have a bug bounty but one is not available now.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
No documented protocol security monitoring was found. There is monitoring for the validator status. This gives a score of 40%, as per our guidance.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
There is no indication of documented front end monitoring.
Admin Controls
0%
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? (%)
ether.fi Is an upgradable contract. It is difficult to see who the owner is. Without additional information we will assume an EOA. This brings a score of 0%.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
The Governance section of the docs is said to be in the works. The upgradability of the contract is not discussed. This gives a score of 0%.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
The admin addresses, roles and responsibilities are not described in the documentation.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
The signers of the admin addresses are not described anywhere.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
With no admin addresses known, it is not surprising that there is no documentation on a transaction signing policy.