This is a Process Quality Review of MCDEX completed on 11 November, 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6.1) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 80%, a solid 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.

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)

They are available at bottom of the readme of https://github.com/mcdexio/mai-protocol-v2 as indicated in the Appendix. All the addresses are available.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Activity is transactions a day on contract AdminUpgradableProxy.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)

Location: https://github.com/mcdexio​

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? (%)

With 84 commits and 12 branches, this is a healthy 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)

The founder provides his name in the Whitepaper.

Location: https://mcdex.io/references/#/en-US/white-paper​

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)

Location: https://mcdex.io/references/#/en-US/white-paper​

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)

Location: https://mcdex.io/doc/api/#api-authentication-header​

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? (%)

Some of the software functions are documented in the API. There is not comprehensive requirement documentation for the majority of the code in their documentation.

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 (%)

Most of the code has detailed comments explaining the functions of the code.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 49% 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 (%)

There is explicit traceability between some of the code, but not all of it.

The code snippets of the API show traceability well, but it is a small fraction of the code: https://mcdex.io/doc/api/#api-authentication-header​

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? (%)

The TtC ratio is 515%, indicating a high amount of testing.

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

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

Their code coverage is 95%, as indicated in their GitHub.​

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

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

There are no evident 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)

The testing repository can be found in their GitHub.

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 (%)

The Coveralls report meets most of the results of a test report.

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 (%)

There is no evidence of formal verification testing having been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

There is evidence of stress testing of their governance contracts. ​

Audits

An audit was preformed by OpenZeppelin in June 5th.

MCDex was released 18 June 2020.

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 : [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.

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

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

​
    /**
     * @dev Validate fields of order.
     *
     * @param perpetual  Instance of perpetual contract.
     * @param orderParam Order parameter.
     * @return Valid order hash.
     */
    function validateOrderParam(IPerpetual perpetual, LibOrder.OrderParam memory orderParam)
        internal
        view
        returns (bytes32)
    {
        require(orderParam.orderVersion() == SUPPORTED_ORDER_VERSION, "unsupported version");
        require(orderParam.expiredAt() >= block.timestamp, "order expired");
        require(orderParam.chainId() == getChainId(), "unmatched chainid");
​
        bytes32 orderHash = orderParam.getOrderHash(address(perpetual), msg.sender);
        require(!cancelled[orderHash], "cancelled order");
        require(orderParam.signature.isValidSignature(orderHash, orderParam.trader), "invalid signature");
        require(filled[orderHash] < orderParam.amount, "fullfilled order");
​
        return orderHash;
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev Claim trading fee. Fee goes to brokers margin account.
     *
     * @param perpetual Address of perpetual contract.
     * @param trader    Address of account who will pay fee out.
     * @param fee       Amount of fee, decimals = 18.
     */
    function claimTradingFee(
        IPerpetual perpetual,
        address trader,
        int256 fee
    )
        internal
    {
        if (fee > 0) {
            perpetual.transferCashBalance(trader, msg.sender, fee.toUint256());
        } else if (fee < 0) {
            perpetual.transferCashBalance(msg.sender, trader, fee.neg().toUint256());
        }
    }
​
​
    /**
     * @dev Claim dev fee. Especially, for fee from closing positon
     *
     * @param perpetual     Address of perpetual.
     * @param trader        Address of margin account.
     * @param price         Price of position.
     * @param openedAmount  Opened position amount.
     * @param closedAmount  Closed position amount.
     * @param feeRate       Maker's order.
     */
    function claimDevFee(
        IPerpetual perpetual,
        address trader,
        uint256 price,
        uint256 openedAmount,
        uint256 closedAmount,
        int256 feeRate
    )
        internal
    {
        if (feeRate == 0) {
            return;
        }
        int256 hard = price.wmul(openedAmount).toInt256().wmul(feeRate);
        int256 soft = price.wmul(closedAmount).toInt256().wmul(feeRate);
        int256 fee = hard.add(soft);
        address devAddress = perpetual.devAddress();
        if (fee > 0) {
            int256 available = perpetual.availableMargin(trader);
            require(available >= hard, "available margin too low for fee");
            fee = fee.min(available);
            perpetual.transferCashBalance(trader, devAddress, fee.toUint256());
        } else if (fee < 0) {
            perpetual.transferCashBalance(devAddress, trader, fee.neg().toUint256());
            require(perpetual.isSafe(devAddress), "dev unsafe");
        }
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev Claim dev fee in taker fee rate set by perpetual governacne.
     *
     * @param perpetual     Address of perpetual.
     * @param trader        Taker's order.
     * @param price         Maker's order.
     * @param openedAmount  Maker's order.
     * @param closedAmount  Maker's order.
     */
    function claimTakerDevFee(
        IPerpetual perpetual,
        address trader,
        uint256 price,
        uint256 openedAmount,
        uint256 closedAmount
    )
        internal
    {
        int256 rate = perpetual.getGovernance().takerDevFeeRate;
        claimDevFee(perpetual, trader, price, openedAmount, closedAmount, rate);
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev Claim dev fee in maker fee rate set by perpetual governacne.
     *
     * @param perpetual     Address of perpetual.
     * @param trader        Taker's order.
     * @param price         Maker's order.
     * @param openedAmount  Maker's order.
     * @param closedAmount  Maker's order.
     */
    function claimMakerDevFee(
        IPerpetual perpetual,
        address trader,
        uint256 price,
        uint256 openedAmount,
        uint256 closedAmount
    )
        internal
    {
        int256 rate = perpetual.getGovernance().makerDevFeeRate;
        claimDevFee(perpetual, trader, price, openedAmount, closedAmount, rate);
    }

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Comments to Code 1018 / 2079 = 49%

Javascript Tests

Tests to Code 10714 / 2079 = 515%