If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
Eigan Layer
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
90%
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? (%)
With a little bit of digging in the documents, the smart contract address page was easy to find in the GitHub: https://github.com/Layr-Labs/eigenlayer-contracts?tab=readme-ov-file#deployments
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Yes: https://github.com/Layr-Labs/eigenlayer-contracts
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
There are many actual person contributors in the GitHub.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
Devs responded on discord quickly and we sent an email. From that no response. Score 40%
Code Documentation
87%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Yes: https://docs.eigenlayer.xyz/eigenlayer/overview/whitepaper
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
The docs section of the core contracts has a detailed description of the software. It includes a list of system components and diagrams of standard user flows. This is a good system level description yielding a score of 75%. It is not a detailed system description which would give 100%.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
Excellent detailed documentation of all of the software appears clearly evident. Score 100%.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
Because the software includes the relevant software segments (generally function calls) with the documentation we would give this a score of 60%. It does give clear association between the code and the documentation though without any explicit traceability.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
Documentation is well organized and easy to find. Score 100%. The documentation is all in the GitHub, not in a Gitbook. However for software documentation I find this fully acceptable.
Testing
73%
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 = 28078 / 6263 = 448% which gives a score of 100% as per guidance.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
No indication of code coverage in the GitHub, but clearly there is a complete set of tests so 50% as per guidance.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
There is no evidence of a test report available for review.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
There is a formal verification report.
Security
86%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
In the GitHub there is an audit directory that includes 8 clear audits, including the Cetora formal validation, which included significant traditional audit aspects. Based on the titles and the dates (M1, M2, M4) I believe there are three different versions which were independently audited. Each version has at least two audits. The quality and authors of the audits are top-notch. The audits appear to be written before deployment and clearly findings have been resolved. Overall score 100%.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
There is no evident matrix of applicability. However the titles and dates of the audits give a clear impression of the versions of the software. This would imply that the previous audits are not as valid. However this is never clearly stated. Given this, a score of 40% will be given.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There are vague mentions of protocol monitoring in the documentation. However there is nothing specific. This gives a score of 0%.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
No documentation of front end monitoring is evident. Score 0%.
Admin Controls
61%
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? (%)
EiganLayer appears updatable via a Multisig with no time lock delay. This gives a score of 40%.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
In the Multisig Govenance page of the documentation the first sentence clearly mentions that EiganLayer is designed with upgradable smart contracts. There is no mention that there is no time lock. However the information is clear and immediately available. Score 100%.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
In the Multisig Govenance page The roles and capabilities of the three Multisig wallets are clearly described. Score 100%.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
In the Multisig Govenance page There are three separate Multisig's listed (pausing, operations and community). There is a list of signers for the community Multisig. However there is no association between the signers and address and therefore no proof that the signers are indeed distinct humans. On the other two Multisig's there is no indication of who the signers are or if they are distinct humans. As per guidance this gives a score of 30%.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
There is no indication of a transaction signing policy. Score 0%.