Finished Reviews

IndexCoop Process Quality Review

Score: 49%

This is an IndexCoop Process Quality Review completed on 2/9/2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6.1) and is documented here. The review was performed by Lucas of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 49%, a fail. 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.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

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://docs.indexcoop.com/developers/contract-addresses#undefined as indicated in the Appendix.

How to improve this score

Make the Ethereum addresses of the smart contract utilized by your application available on either your website or your GitHub (in the README for instance). Ensure the addresses is up to date. This is a very important question wrt to the final score.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 35 transactions a day on contract StakingRewardsV2.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

GitHub: https://github.com/SetProtocol/index-coop-contracts

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.

Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 20%

With 14 commits and 1 branch, this is not a healthy software repository.

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: Yes

Some of the contributor names can be seen on their GitHub.

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 is a No.

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

How to improve this score

Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.

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

Answer: No

There is no software function documentation evident.

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: 0%

There is no evident software function documentation present.

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: 58%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 58% 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

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

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

Answer: 0%

Since no software function documentation is evident, there is no connection between the documentation and the code.

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

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding traceability from requirements to code such that it is clear where each requirement is coded. For reference, check the SecurEth guidelines on traceability.

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%

With a TtC of 202%, there is clearly a robust series of tests.

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: 30%

As indicated by a coverage report on their GitHub Repository, the coverage of this protocol is 30%.

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

There are no scripts and instructions to run the tests.

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: 0%

Guidance: 100% - Detailed test report as described below 70% - GitHub Code coverage report visible 0% - No test report evident

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: 0%

There are no published Kovan or Ropsten Testnet Addresses.

Audits

Answer: 20%

There have been no audits preformed on the IndexCoop contracts. The reasoning behind this is because they are mostly a fork of Uniswap and compound with minimal changes.

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 DeFi Safety.

Email : [email protected]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.

DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

pragma solidity ^0.6.10;
pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
contract IndexToken {
/// @notice EIP-20 token name for this token
string public constant name = "Index";
/// @notice EIP-20 token symbol for this token
string public constant symbol = "INDEX";
/// @notice EIP-20 token decimals for this token
uint8 public constant decimals = 18;
/// @notice Total number of tokens in circulation
uint public constant totalSupply = 10000000e18; // 10 million INDEX
/// @notice Allowance amounts on behalf of others
mapping (address => mapping (address => uint96)) internal allowances;
/// @notice Official record of token balances for each account
mapping (address => uint96) internal balances;
/// @notice A record of each accounts delegate
mapping (address => address) public delegates;
/// @notice A checkpoint for marking number of votes from a given block
struct Checkpoint {
uint32 fromBlock;
uint96 votes;
}
/// @notice A record of votes checkpoints for each account, by index
mapping (address => mapping (uint32 => Checkpoint)) public checkpoints;
/// @notice The number of checkpoints for each account
mapping (address => uint32) public numCheckpoints;
/// @notice The EIP-712 typehash for the contract's domain
bytes32 public constant DOMAIN_TYPEHASH = keccak256("EIP712Domain(string name,uint256 chainId,address verifyingContract)");
/// @notice The EIP-712 typehash for the delegation struct used by the contract
bytes32 public constant DELEGATION_TYPEHASH = keccak256("Delegation(address delegatee,uint256 nonce,uint256 expiry)");
/// @notice A record of states for signing / validating signatures
mapping (address => uint) public nonces;
/// @notice An event thats emitted when an account changes its delegate
event DelegateChanged(address indexed delegator, address indexed fromDelegate, address indexed toDelegate);
/// @notice An event thats emitted when a delegate account's vote balance changes
event DelegateVotesChanged(address indexed delegate, uint previousBalance, uint newBalance);
/// @notice The standard EIP-20 transfer event
event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 amount);
/// @notice The standard EIP-20 approval event
event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 amount);
/**
* @notice Deploy INDEX token
* @param account The initial account to grant all the tokens
*/
constructor(address account) public {
balances[account] = uint96(totalSupply);
emit Transfer(address(0), account, totalSupply);
}
/**
* @notice Get the number of tokens `spender` is approved to spend on behalf of `account`
* @param account The address of the account holding the funds
* @param spender The address of the account spending the funds
* @return The number of tokens approved
*/
function allowance(address account, address spender) external view returns (uint) {
return allowances[account][spender];
}
/**
* @notice Approve `spender` to transfer up to `amount` from `src`
* @dev This will overwrite the approval amount for `spender`
* and is subject to issues noted [here](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20#approve)
* @param spender The address of the account which may transfer tokens
* @param rawAmount The number of tokens that are approved (2^256-1 means infinite)
* @return Whether or not the approval succeeded
*/
function approve(address spender, uint rawAmount) external returns (bool) {
uint96 amount;
if (rawAmount == uint(-1)) {
amount = uint96(-1);
} else {
amount = safe96(rawAmount, "INDEX.approve: amount exceeds 96 bits");
}
allowances[msg.sender][spender] = amount;
emit Approval(msg.sender, spender, amount);
return true;
}
/**
* @notice Get the number of tokens held by the `account`
* @param account The address of the account to get the balance of
* @return The number of tokens held
*/
function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint) {
return balances[account];
}
/**
* @notice Transfer `amount` tokens from `msg.sender` to `dst`
* @param dst The address of the destination account
* @param rawAmount The number of tokens to transfer
* @return Whether or not the transfer succeeded
*/
function transfer(address dst, uint rawAmount) external returns (bool) {
uint96 amount = safe96(rawAmount, "INDEX.transfer: amount exceeds 96 bits");
_transferTokens(msg.sender, dst, amount);
return true;
}
/**
* @notice Transfer `amount` tokens from `src` to `dst`
* @param src The address of the source account
* @param dst The address of the destination account
* @param rawAmount The number of tokens to transfer
* @return Whether or not the transfer succeeded
*/
function transferFrom(address src, address dst, uint rawAmount) external returns (bool) {
address spender = msg.sender;
uint96 spenderAllowance = allowances[src][spender];
uint96 amount = safe96(rawAmount, "INDEX.approve: amount exceeds 96 bits");
if (spender != src && spenderAllowance != uint96(-1)) {
uint96 newAllowance = sub96(spenderAllowance, amount, "INDEX.transferFrom: transfer amount exceeds spender allowance");
allowances[src][spender] = newAllowance;
emit Approval(src, spender, newAllowance);
}
_transferTokens(src, dst, amount);
return true;
}
/**
* @notice Delegate votes from `msg.sender` to `delegatee`
* @param delegatee The address to delegate votes to
*/
function delegate(address delegatee) public {
return _delegate(msg.sender, delegatee);
}
/**
* @notice Delegates votes from signatory to `delegatee`
* @param delegatee The address to delegate votes to
* @param nonce The contract state required to match the signature
* @param expiry The time at which to expire the signature
* @param v The recovery byte of the signature
* @param r Half of the ECDSA signature pair
* @param s Half of the ECDSA signature pair
*/
function delegateBySig(address delegatee, uint nonce, uint expiry, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) public {
bytes32 domainSeparator = keccak256(abi.encode(DOMAIN_TYPEHASH, keccak256(bytes(name)), getChainId(), address(this)));
bytes32 structHash = keccak256(abi.encode(DELEGATION_TYPEHASH, delegatee, nonce, expiry));
bytes32 digest = keccak256(abi.encodePacked("\x19\x01", domainSeparator, structHash));
address signatory = ecrecover(digest, v, r, s);
require(signatory != address(0), "INDEX.delegateBySig: invalid signature");
require(nonce == nonces[signatory]++, "INDEX.delegateBySig: invalid nonce");
require(now <= expiry, "INDEX.delegateBySig: signature expired");
return _delegate(signatory, delegatee);
}
/**
* @notice Gets the current votes balance for `account`
* @param account The address to get votes balance
* @return The number of current votes for `account`
*/
function getCurrentVotes(address account) external view returns (uint96) {
uint32 nCheckpoints = numCheckpoints[account];
return nCheckpoints > 0 ? checkpoints[account][nCheckpoints - 1].votes : 0;
}
/**
* @notice Determine the prior number of votes for an account as of a block number
* @dev Block number must be a finalized block or else this function will revert to prevent misinformation.
* @param account The address of the account to check
* @param blockNumber The block number to get the vote balance at
* @return The number of votes the account had as of the given block
*/
function getPriorVotes(address account, uint blockNumber) public view returns (uint96) {
require(blockNumber < block.number, "INDEX.getPriorVotes: not yet determined");
uint32 nCheckpoints = numCheckpoints[account];
if (nCheckpoints == 0) {
return 0;
}
// First check most recent balance
if (checkpoints[account][nCheckpoints - 1].fromBlock <= blockNumber) {
return checkpoints[account][nCheckpoints - 1].votes;
}
// Next check implicit zero balance
if (checkpoints[account][0].fromBlock > blockNumber) {
return 0;
}
uint32 lower = 0;
uint32 upper = nCheckpoints - 1;
while (upper > lower) {
uint32 center = upper - (upper - lower) / 2; // ceil, avoiding overflow
Checkpoint memory cp = checkpoints[account][center];
if (cp.fromBlock == blockNumber) {
return cp.votes;
} else if (cp.fromBlock < blockNumber) {
lower = center;
} else {
upper = center - 1;
}
}
return checkpoints[account][lower].votes;
}
function _delegate(address delegator, address delegatee) internal {
address currentDelegate = delegates[delegator];
uint96 delegatorBalance = balances[delegator];
delegates[delegator] = delegatee;
emit DelegateChanged(delegator, currentDelegate, delegatee);
_moveDelegates(currentDelegate, delegatee, delegatorBalance);
}
function _transferTokens(address src, address dst, uint96 amount) internal {
require(src != address(0), "INDEX._transferTokens: cannot transfer from the zero address");
require(dst != address(0), "INDEX._transferTokens: cannot transfer to the zero address");
balances[src] = sub96(balances[src], amount, "INDEX._transferTokens: transfer amount exceeds balance");
balances[dst] = add96(balances[dst], amount, "INDEX._transferTokens: transfer amount overflows");
emit Transfer(src, dst, amount);
_moveDelegates(delegates[src], delegates[dst], amount);
}
function _moveDelegates(address srcRep, address dstRep, uint96 amount) internal {
if (srcRep != dstRep && amount > 0) {
if (srcRep != address(0)) {
uint32 srcRepNum = numCheckpoints[srcRep];
uint96 srcRepOld = srcRepNum > 0 ? checkpoints[srcRep][srcRepNum - 1].votes : 0;
uint96 srcRepNew = sub96(srcRepOld, amount, "INDEX._moveVotes: vote amount underflows");
_writeCheckpoint(srcRep, srcRepNum, srcRepOld, srcRepNew);
}
if (dstRep != address(0)) {
uint32 dstRepNum = numCheckpoints[dstRep];
uint96 dstRepOld = dstRepNum > 0 ? checkpoints[dstRep][dstRepNum - 1].votes : 0;
uint96 dstRepNew = add96(dstRepOld, amount, "INDEX._moveVotes: vote amount overflows");
_writeCheckpoint(dstRep, dstRepNum, dstRepOld, dstRepNew);
}
}
}
function _writeCheckpoint(address delegatee, uint32 nCheckpoints, uint96 oldVotes, uint96 newVotes) internal {
uint32 blockNumber = safe32(block.number, "INDEX._writeCheckpoint: block number exceeds 32 bits");
if (nCheckpoints > 0 && checkpoints[delegatee][nCheckpoints - 1].fromBlock == blockNumber) {
checkpoints[delegatee][nCheckpoints - 1].votes = newVotes;
} else {
checkpoints[delegatee][nCheckpoints] = Checkpoint(blockNumber, newVotes);
numCheckpoints[delegatee] = nCheckpoints + 1;
}
emit DelegateVotesChanged(delegatee, oldVotes, newVotes);
}
function safe32(uint n, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint32) {
require(n < 2**32, errorMessage);
return uint32(n);
}
function safe96(uint n, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint96) {
require(n < 2**96, errorMessage);
return uint96(n);
}
function add96(uint96 a, uint96 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint96) {
uint96 c = a + b;
require(c >= a, errorMessage);
return c;
}
function sub96(uint96 a, uint96 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint96) {
require(b <= a, errorMessage);
return a - b;
}
function getChainId() internal pure returns (uint) {
uint256 chainId;
assembly { chainId := chainid() }
return chainId;
}
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

31

4181

659

1298

2224

199

Comments to Code 1298/2224 = 58%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

7

6066

1304

252

4510

8

Tests to Code 4510/2224 = 202%