If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
Usual
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? (%)
Smart contracts are a dedicated page on the Gitbook. Easy to find. 100%.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
No public team members could be found.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
The community manager responded, but devs had no time for this. Score 50%.
Code Documentation
92%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
The white paper is here.
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
There is a comprehensive architecture description of the software.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There does appear to be full documentation of the protocol software.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
While there is good documentation, there is little traceability to the software. Indeed, we cannot find the GitHub and thus there is no software to trace to. It does appear that the GitHub link is not intended to be available.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
Information is well organized, compartmentalized and easy to navigate
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? (%)
No GitHub software repository was found. This means there was no code and no tests. This brings a score of 0%. They do have a page mentioning there testing framework with no details or links. This does not change the score.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
With no code available, there is no information and the score defaults to 0%.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report is evident. Score 0%.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
We could not find a formal verification report in the audit section.
Security
83%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There are multiple high quality audit and audit contests. The findings in the audits were resolved or acknowledged. It is telling that one audit indicates very high control for the protocol on token minting. I think the concern for this protocol is centralized governance and control. This does not detract from the audit score which is 100%.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
The audit page is quite detailed. It mentions the date and scope of each audit or audit competition. This meets the requirements of a matrix of audit applicability and gets a score of 100%.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
While Usual Protocol offered bug bounties in audit competitions, a formal long-term bug bounty documentation was not found. At this point this drives a score of 0%.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There is a page dedicated to their monitoring framework. It specifies active protocol monitoring with "automated defense mechanisms" which would In our context cover "threat monitoring". Result score 100%.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
No documentation on front end monitoring found. Score 0%.
Admin Controls
13%
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 contract is clearly upgradable (from Etherscan). This is also mentioned in several points in the software documentation where they indicate "upgradeable ERC4626-compliant vault". Without additional information, we assume it is an EOA. Score 0%
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
It is mentioned on several occasions that the contracts are upgradable. However, there are no details on the signing process, who has the keys or other details. Score 50%.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
There is no information about admin addresses roles or capabilities. Score 0%.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
No signers are listed. Score 0%.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
There is no transaction signing policy documentation. Score 0%.