If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
HyperLiquid
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
17%
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? (%)
No smart contract addresses could be found. Note that Hyperliquid runs on its own blockchain. This does change things but still the core of DeFi is being certain you can see the code that you are executing. That is not available here. Score 0%.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
https://github.com/hyperliquid-dex
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Hyper liquid appears to be anon. While there is a core contributors page, it only mentions one first name that connects to an anonymous X profile and pseudonom. Score 0%.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
They responded and said they were probably closed source. We should trust their founders, which are anon, that is enough.
Code Documentation
0%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
No white paper was found.
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
No software documentation was found including architecture documents. Score 0%.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
No software documentation was found. Score 0%.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
With no software documentation, there can be no traceability. Score 0%.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
With no software documentation this defaults to a score of 0%.
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? (%)
We could not find the protocol's software code. In the repository there is some solidity code for an Arbitrum bridge, but it is clearly not the perpetual protocol software. With no software, there are no tests. Score 0%.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
With no tests there can be no code coverage. Score 0%.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report was evident. Score 0%.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No formal validation test report was found.
Security
14%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
First, when the smart contracts are impossible to find, any audit would get a score of 0% by default as per our guidance. There are two audits listed in the documentation. Each audit lasted only two days (which is quite small for such a large piece of software) and upon reading it were only concerned with the Arbitrum bridge to the software. So neither of these audits covered either the L-1 or the decentralized exchange software. This means the audits would be out of scope even if the code was available. Score 0%.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
Given that there are less than four audits, the score defaults to 100%.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
There is a bug bounty. It is self managed. Disconcertingly the amounts listed for critical high and medium all have a < sign before them. Not the kind of certainty a white hat hacker wants to see. As the critical bug amount is "less than $1 million" we will interpret that as 500 K with no active program meaning a score of 80%.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
There is no active monitoring described.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
No front-end website monitoring is described. Score 0%.
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? (%)
Hyperlink what is its own L-1. However, this does not mean that upgradability is not a concern. There is no documentation about whether the protocol is upgradable or immutable. Without knowledge and without anything resembling Etherscan, we have to score this and 0%.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
There is no documentation about upgradability of either the L-1 or the decentralized exchange. Score 0%
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
There are no admin addresses, no description of change management no roles no capabilities nothing. Score 0%
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
There are no listed signers. There are no Multisig's described.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
With no documentation on change management, there is also nothing described for transaction signing policies. Score 0%.