If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
IPOR
PASS
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
100%
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 of the IPOR Protocol are easily accessible and clearly labelled on the protocol's documentation on the page Deployed Contracts in the Gitbook. All the addresses for the different functions such as AMM, IPOR Oracle, Asset Management, and Liquidity mining among others are listed and can be found on the same page.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
GitHub link is on the footer of the homepage.
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
There is a team page with the names and profiles of the full team. This is referenced from the footer of the website. In this gives a score of 100%.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
Devs responded within 24hours, 100%.
Code Documentation
56%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
There is a white paper that is referenced in their documentation.
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
There is a set of basic system architecture diagrams in the Developer Doc section under V2 changes. These software diagrams have very light connection to the actual code. There are also a strong set of documentation that describes the algorithms and logic without making direct reference to the software. This also contributes to the overall architecture description and the two together justify a 100% score.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is effectively no software documentation available. There are some comments in the code, but they are quite limited based on the code comments a score of 30% is given.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
In the Deployed Contracts section there is an association between the smart contract address and the GitHub contract code. This is an extremely low level of traceability and the code is not documented or commented on. However it is an association and a score of 20% is given.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
The software architecture information is reasonably well organized, but there is no software documentation at all. We will give 30% for the software architecture documentation but this question really refers to the organization of documentation of the actual software.
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? (%)
The test to code ratio is 67461 / 14052 = 485%. This drives a score of 100%
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There does not appear to be any coverage report but clearly there are a complete set of tests so 50% as per our guidance.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report seems evident.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No formal verification reports were seen.
Security
86%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
The IPOR Protocol has multiple audits from a two different auditors. The changes requested by the auditors were implemented in at least several cases. This brings a score of 100%.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
The audit list has to date and subject of the audit for each of the 11 audits listed. There is no indication on which are applicable. There are comments indicating which audits are applicable to the current deployed software. This drives a score of 100%.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
IPOR Has a bug bounty with Immunefi with a maximum of 100 K. This drives a score of 70%.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There is no evidence of security-based protocol monitoring found in the documentation.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
No evidence of front and monitoring was found in the documentation.
Admin Controls
69%
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 IPOR Protocol Timelock holds the control of contract upgrades. The duration of the timelock is programmable. This gives a score of 80% as per guidance.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
In the Contract Overview section the updatable code is clearly indicated. "The smart contract has the owner rights over the IPOR Protocol. It can schedule proposals for execution. " The two elements drive a 100% score, because it is pretty minimal.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
Admin addresses, roles and capabilities are clearly explained on the "Governing Multisig wallets" page.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
All signers of the admin addresses are clearly listed which is 60% and at the top they at least say that each "IPOR Labs" address is held by a separate individual. They don't prove this but at least they said it and for this I will give them another 20%.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
There is no transaction signing policy.
Oracles
50%
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)
The IPOR Protocol employs two types of oracles - Risk Oracle and IPOR Oracle. The Risk Oracle is used for compiling externally modeled constants such as leverage cap, collateral factor, a dynamic offered rate cap, and base spread params. These parameters are not saved to the chain but are compiled by the off-chain oracle service, signed, and provided via an S3 API [
25. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
The IPOR Oracle is well-documented. The documentation provides information on the Oracle structure including the rate calculation contract, the Oracle contract, and the rate publication off-chain oracle service. It also details public functions and the source of the index rates. Additionally, audits of the IPOR Protocol and the Oracle are available, further adding to the transparency and reliability of the Oracle.
26. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Flash loans do appear to be a risk and we could not find any text describing how this risk is mitigated by the protocol. Therefore the answer here will stay no.