Datamine Process Quality Review

Score 81%

This is a Process Quality Review of Datamine completed on 16 November, 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 81%, a clear pass. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

Summary of the Process

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 contracts on the blockchain

  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do

  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract

  • Here are the audit(s) performed on my code by third party experts

Disclaimer

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.

Code and Team

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. This review will answer the questions;

  1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (Y/N)

  2. Is the code actively being used? (%)

  3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

  4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

  5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Are the executing code addresses readily available? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

They are available at website https://github.com/Datamine-Crypto/white-paper/blob/master/docs/datamine-smart-contracts.md as indicated in the Appendix.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 22 transactions a day on contract Damtoken.sol, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance

100% More than 10 transactions a day 70% More than 10 transactions a week 40% More than 10 transactions a month 10% Less than 10 transactions a month 0% No activity

Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/Datamine-Crypto

Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but normally test and scripts also (Y/N). Even if the repo was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a Yes. For teams with private repos, this answer is No.

How to improve this score

Maintain a public repo, at least for deployed code. Public repo's are in line with the vision of Ethereum where development is shared and public.

Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 50%

With 62 commits and 1 branch, this is a semi-healthy development repo.

This 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).

Guidance: 100% Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches 70% Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches 50% Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches 30% Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches 0% Less than 2 branches or less than 10 commits

How to improve this score

Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools. A public development history indicates clearly to the public the level of continued investment and activity by the developers on the application. This gives a level of security and faith in the application.

Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: No

The Datamine 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. If the team is anonymous and then this question seems a No.

How to improve this score

A public team increases overall trust in an application. It reduces the risk of "rug pulls" or having a team member disappear with some assets.

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

Required questions are;

  1. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

  2. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

  3. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

  4. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

  5. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in codee (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://support.datamine.network/hc/en-us/articles/360049535314-3-Technical-Whitepaper

Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The technical whitepaper contains impressive detail as to the functions of their contracts.

Location: https://support.datamine.network/hc/en-us/articles/360049535314-3-Technical-Whitepaper

How to improve this score

Write the document based on the deployed code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document.

Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 100%

Their technical whitepaper offers detailed documentation of their deployed contracts, and all the functions found within the contracts.

Guidance:

100% All contracts and functions documented 80% Only the major functions documented 79-1% Estimate of the level of software documentation 0% No software documentation

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding content to the requirements document such that it comprehensively covers the requirements. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document . Using tools that aid traceability detection will help.

Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 100%

Code is well-commented throughout the entire documentation, and the comment to code ratio is quite high (147%)

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 147% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Guidance: 100% CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code 90-70% CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code 60-20% CtC > 20 Some useful commenting 0% CtC < 20 No useful commenting

Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 100%

There is clear, explicit tracability between their contracts and their code, on all levels.

Guidance: 100% - Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code 60% - Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability 40% - Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions 0% - No connection between documentation and code

Testing

This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;

  1. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

  2. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

  3. Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

  4. Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

  5. Report of the results (%)

  6. Formal Verification test done (%)

  7. Stress Testing environment (%)

Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 100%

There does not seem to be a test suite published in their GitHub. However they have printed their test report in the github whitepaper; https://github.com/Datamine-Crypto/white-paper/blob/master/docs/testing-results.md. It indicates full system testing of their two contracts.

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.

Guidance: 100% TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible 80% TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible 40% TtC < 80% Some tests visible 0% No tests obvious

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding tests to fully cover the code. Document what is covered by traceability or test results in the software repository.

Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 50%

No coverage information.

Guidance: 100% - Documented full coverage 99-51% - Value of test coverage from documented results 50% - No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests 30% - Some tests evident but not complete 0% - No test for coverage seen

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding tests achieving full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

Answer: No

No scripts visible.

How to improve this score

Add the scripts to the repository and ensure they work. Ask an outsider to create the environment and run the tests. Improve the scripts and docs based on their feedback.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

How to improve this score

Improving this score requires redeployment of the code, with the tests. This score gives credit to those who test their code before deployment and release them together. If a developer adds tests after deployment they can gain full points for all test elements except this one.

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 60%

The test report indicates system tests on their two contracts and the type of tests conducted. No indication of coverage or elements not covered.

How to improve this score

Add a report with the results. The test scripts should generate the report or elements of it.

Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

Ropsten test network addresses included here with indication of the testing that took place :https://github.com/Datamine-Crypto/white-paper/blob/master/docs/testing-results.md

Audits

Answer: 90%

Multiple audits have been preformed on the contracts by SlowMist, in October 2020. Both audits were preformed after deployedment.

Guidance:

  1. Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (100%)

  2. Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (90%)

  3. Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public. (70%)

  4. No audit performed (20%)

  5. Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, question 1 (0%)

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.

Email : rex@defisafety.com Twitter : @defisafety

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education. It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process. Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.

I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development.

Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.

Career wise I am a business development manager for an avionics supplier.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

/**
* @dev Burn tokens
* @param from address token holder address
* @param amount uint256 amount of tokens to burn
* @param data bytes extra information provided by the token holder
* @param operatorData bytes extra information provided by the operator (if any)
*/
function _burn(
address from,
uint256 amount,
bytes memory data,
bytes memory operatorData
)
internal virtual
{
require(from != address(0), "ERC777: burn from the zero address");
address operator = _msgSender();
_beforeTokenTransfer(operator, from, address(0), amount);
_callTokensToSend(operator, from, address(0), amount, data, operatorData);
// Update state variables
_balances[from] = _balances[from].sub(amount, "ERC777: burn amount exceeds balance");
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.sub(amount);
emit Burned(operator, from, amount, data, operatorData);
emit Transfer(from, address(0), amount);
}
function _move(
address operator,
address from,
address to,
uint256 amount,
bytes memory userData,
bytes memory operatorData
)
private
{
_beforeTokenTransfer(operator, from, to, amount);
_balances[from] = _balances[from].sub(amount, "ERC777: transfer amount exceeds balance");
_balances[to] = _balances[to].add(amount);
emit Sent(operator, from, to, amount, userData, operatorData);
emit Transfer(from, to, amount);
}
/**
* @dev See {ERC20-_approve}.
*
* Note that accounts cannot have allowance issued by their operators.
*/
function _approve(address holder, address spender, uint256 value) internal {
require(holder != address(0), "ERC777: approve from the zero address");
require(spender != address(0), "ERC777: approve to the zero address");
_allowances[holder][spender] = value;
emit Approval(holder, spender, value);
}
/**
* @dev Call from.tokensToSend() if the interface is registered
* @param operator address operator requesting the transfer
* @param from address token holder address
* @param to address recipient address
* @param amount uint256 amount of tokens to transfer
* @param userData bytes extra information provided by the token holder (if any)
* @param operatorData bytes extra information provided by the operator (if any)
*/
function _callTokensToSend(
address operator,
address from,
address to,
uint256 amount,
bytes memory userData,
bytes memory operatorData
)
private
{
address implementer = _ERC1820_REGISTRY.getInterfaceImplementer(from, _TOKENS_SENDER_INTERFACE_HASH);
if (implementer != address(0)) {
IERC777Sender(implementer).tokensToSend(operator, from, to, amount, userData, operatorData);
}
}
/**
* @dev Call to.tokensReceived() if the interface is registered. Reverts if the recipient is a contract but
* tokensReceived() was not registered for the recipient
* @param operator address operator requesting the transfer
* @param from address token holder address
* @param to address recipient address
* @param amount uint256 amount of tokens to transfer
* @param userData bytes extra information provided by the token holder (if any)
* @param operatorData bytes extra information provided by the operator (if any)
* @param requireReceptionAck if true, contract recipients are required to implement ERC777TokensRecipient
*/
function _callTokensReceived(
address operator,
address from,
address to,
uint256 amount,
bytes memory userData,
bytes memory operatorData,
bool requireReceptionAck
)
private
{
address implementer = _ERC1820_REGISTRY.getInterfaceImplementer(to, _TOKENS_RECIPIENT_INTERFACE_HASH);
if (implementer != address(0)) {
IERC777Recipient(implementer).tokensReceived(operator, from, to, amount, userData, operatorData);
} else if (requireReceptionAck) {
require(!to.isContract(), "ERC777: token recipient contract has no implementer for ERC777TokensRecipient");
}
}
/**
* @dev Hook that is called before any token transfer. This includes
* calls to {send}, {transfer}, {operatorSend}, minting and burning.
*
* Calling conditions:
*
* - when `from` and `to` are both non-zero, ``from``'s `tokenId` will be
* transferred to `to`.
* - when `from` is zero, `tokenId` will be minted for `to`.
* - when `to` is zero, ``from``'s `tokenId` will be burned.
* - `from` and `to` are never both zero.
*
* To learn more about hooks, head to xref:ROOT:extending-contracts.adoc#using-hooks[Using Hooks].
*/
function _beforeTokenTransfer(address operator, address from, address to, uint256 tokenId) internal virtual { }
}
// File: contracts/DamToken.sol
pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
contract DamToken is ERC777 {
constructor () public ERC777("Datamine", "DAM", new address[](0)) {
_mint(msg.sender, 25000000 * (10 ** 18), "", "");

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

2

2890

415

1477

998

94

Comments to Code 1477/ 998= 147%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

Tests to Code 1358 / 1959 = 70%