If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
FAIL
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 audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
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.
This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)
The executing code addresses were difficult to find and were not provided upon request. Only two executing contract addresses could be found, as indicated in the Appendix.
2. Is the code actively being used? (%)
Activity is over 10 transactions a week on contract , as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)
There is no public software repository.
Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No"
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
There is no public software repository, so no development history is visible.
This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)
The team's identity could not be found. Aside from the pseudonym "Richie Van Gogh", who appears to have been contracted for website design, the iLayer team is anonymous.
For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)
The basic software functions are documented in the whitepaper.
8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
No deployed contracts are detailed, making comparison impossible.
9. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
There is no public software repository, making comment analysis impossible.
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)
There is no project documentation aside from a non-technical whitepaper, making traceability or even comparison impossible.
11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
There is no public software repository, making any test to code metric impossible to calculate. The code cited is from the BSC scan of the token contract address (under "Read Contract").
This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.
12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
No code coverage testing could be found.
13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)
There are no documents nor public repository meaning there are no available testing scripts or instructions on how to run them.
14. Report of the results (%)
No test report is evident.
15. Formal Verification test done (%)
There is no formal verification.
16. Stress Testing environment (%)
There is no evidence of stress testing.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)
No audits have taken place, and there is no public repository.
18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)
There is no bug bounty program.
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. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)
No admin control information could be found.
20. Is the information clear and complete (%)
There is no access control information.
21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)
No admin control information could be found.
22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)
There is no pause control information.
1abstract contract Context {
2 function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address payable) {
3 return payable(msg.sender);
4 }
5
6 function _msgData() internal view virtual returns (bytes memory) {
7 this; // silence state mutability warning without generating bytecode - see https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/2691
8 return msg.data;
9 }
10}
11
12
13interface IERC20 {
14
15 function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);
16 function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);
17 function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
18 function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256);
19 function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
20 function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
21 event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
22 event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
23
24
25}
26
27library SafeMath {
28
29 function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
30 uint256 c = a + b;
31 require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
32
33 return c;
34 }
35
36 function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
37 return sub(a, b, "SafeMath: subtraction overflow");
38 }
39
40 function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
41 require(b <= a, errorMessage);
42 uint256 c = a - b;
43
44 return c;
45 }
46
47 function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
48 if (a == 0) {
49 return 0;
50 }
51
52 uint256 c = a * b;
53 require(c / a == b, "SafeMath: multiplication overflow");
54
55 return c;
56 }
57
58
59 function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
60 return div(a, b, "SafeMath: division by zero");
61 }
62
63 function div(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
64 require(b > 0, errorMessage);
65 uint256 c = a / b;
66 // assert(a == b * c + a % b); // There is no case in which this doesn't hold
67
68 return c;
69 }
70
71 function mod(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
72 return mod(a, b, "SafeMath: modulo by zero");
73 }
74
75 function mod(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
76 require(b != 0, errorMessage);
77 return a % b;
78 }
79}
80
81library Address {
82
83 function isContract(address account) internal view returns (bool) {
84 // According to EIP-1052, 0x0 is the value returned for not-yet created accounts
85 // and 0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470 is returned
86 / for accounts without code, i.e. `keccak256('')`
87 bytes32 codehash;
88 bytes32 accountHash = 0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470;
89 / solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
90 assembly { codehash := extcodehash(account) }
91 return (codehash != accountHash && codehash != 0x0);
92 }
93
94 function sendValue(address payable recipient, uint256 amount) internal {
95 require(address(this).balance >= amount, "Address: insufficient balance");
96
97 // solhint-disable-next-line avoid-low-level-calls, avoid-call-value
98 (bool success, ) = recipient.call{ value: amount }("");
99 require(success, "Address: unable to send value, recipient may have reverted");
100 }
101
102
103 function functionCall(address target, bytes memory data) internal returns (bytes memory) {
104 return functionCall(target, data, "Address: low-level call failed");
105 }
106
107 function functionCall(address target, bytes memory data, string memory errorMessage) internal returns (bytes memory) {
108 return _functionCallWithValue(target, data, 0, errorMessage);
109 }
110
111 function functionCallWithValue(address target, bytes memory data, uint256 value) internal returns (bytes memory) {
112 return functionCallWithValue(target, data, value, "Address: low-level call with value failed");
113 }
114
115 function functionCallWithValue(address target, bytes memory data, uint256 value, string memory errorMessage) internal returns (bytes memory) {
116 require(address(this).balance >= value, "Address: insufficient balance for call");
117 return _functionCallWithValue(target, data, value, errorMessage);
118 }
119
120 function _functionCallWithValue(address target, bytes memory data, uint256 weiValue, string memory errorMessage) private returns (bytes memory) {
121 require(isContract(target), "Address: call to non-contract");
122
123 (bool success, bytes memory returndata) = target.call{ value: weiValue }(data);
124 if (success) {
125 return returndata;
126 } else {
127
128 if (returndata.length > 0) {
129 assembly {
130 let returndata_size := mload(returndata)
131 revert(add(32, returndata), returndata_size)
132 }
133 } else {
134 revert(errorMessage);
135 }
136 }
137 }
138}
139
140contract Ownable is Context {
141 address private _owner;
142 address private _previousOwner;
143 uint256 private _lockTime;
144
145 event OwnershipTransferred(address indexed previousOwner, address indexed newOwner);
146
147 constructor () {
148 address msgSender = _msgSender();
149 _owner = msgSender;
150 emit OwnershipTransferred(address(0), msgSender);
151 }
152
153 function owner() public view returns (address) {
154 return _owner;
155 }
156
157 modifier onlyOwner() {
158 require(_owner == _msgSender(), "Ownable: caller is not the owner");
159 _;
160 }
161
162 function renounceOwnership() public virtual onlyOwner {
163 emit OwnershipTransferred(_owner, address(0));
164 _owner = address(0);
165 }