If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
Raydium
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
75%
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? (%)
Contract addresses are relatively easy to find. Go to the docs, Developers, Addresses. Score 100%.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Location: https://github.com/raydium-io
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
The team appears to be anonymous. Score 0%.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
The discord admin did respond and asked for the report but no response since they saw it. I will give a 50% for this.
Code Documentation
38%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Yes, though they call is sw docs;
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
There is top-level software architecture description in the developer document. This brings a score of 75%.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is a more detailed documentation of what the software does. It is difficult to call this software documentation because apart from a list of functions it mostly talks in math and logic about how the software works without connecting it to the software. I will give a score of 40%. The actual rust software does not appear to be documented or commented.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is no traceability. There is no connection between the documentation and the software. Score 0%.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
Minimal documentation but well organized.
Testing
0%
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? (%)
I could not find any test software or discussion about tests in the software repository. Score 0%.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
With no tests that can be no evidence or indeed hints of code coverage. Score 0%
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report evident. Score 0%.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No evidence of formal verification was found.
Security
82%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There are four audits in the audit directory going back to 2021. The most recent audit is complete however slightly concerning. It highlighted three critical and one high priority bugs. All were resolved. Two of the resolutions indicate that the problem was not fixed but not relevant. This might be okay, but it is concerning. These audits fully meets the criteria of our guidance. Score 100%.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
There are four audits, which gives a score of 100%. No matrix of audit applicability required yet.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
Raydium Has a bug bounty program with Immunifi with a maximum payout of just over 500 K. This gives a score of 90%.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There is no evidence of protocol monitoring for security against third-party attackers. Score 0%
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
There is no evidence of protocol front-end monitoring. Score 0%.
Admin Controls
42%
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 protocol is upgradable. In the security sections there is an access control document. It clearly states that the upgrade is effectively by only owner. This is equivalent to an EOA and brings a score of 0%.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
The access control document clearly indicates the program is upgradable by the owner with no other controls. This is clearly documented. Score 100%.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
The admin addresses roles and responsibilities are clearly explained. Only owner has full control and this is clearly documented. Score 100%.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
No signers are listed and as they are anonymous, there is no evidence they are distinct humans. Score 0%.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
No transaction signing policy is evident. Score 0%.