P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
PieDAO Process Quality Review
Score: 82%

Overview

This is a PieDAO Process Quality Review completed on October 1st 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nic of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 82%, a PASS. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix. For our purposes, a pass is 70%.

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
    Here are the admin controls and strategies

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.

Chain

This section indicates the blockchain used by this protocol.
Chain: Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra Celo Arbitrum Solana

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 following questions:
1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%) 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)

1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 100%
They are available at website https://docs.piedao.org/technical/deployed-smart-contracts, as indicated in the Appendix.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc 20% Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find 0% Executing addresses could not be found

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

Answer: 100%
Activity is over 10 internal transactions a day on contract PV2SmartPool, as indicated in the Appendix.

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

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

Answer: 100%
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? (%)

Answer: 100%
With 181 commits and 17 branches, PieDAO's "Smart Pools" GitHub repository has a robust development history.
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).
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 30 commits

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

Answer: Yes
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".

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N) 7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N) 8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%) 9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%) 10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: Yes
PieDAO's basic software functions are all documented under the "Dev Docs" section of their documentation at https://docs.piedao.org/technical/architecture.

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

Answer: 80%
PieDAO's software documentation covers most of the deployed contracts at https://docs.piedao.org/technical/architecture, as well as in the README.md of their corresponding GitHub repositories. The only contract that does not have its functions documented is the "Governance" contract.
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

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

Answer: 55%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 55% 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.

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

Answer: 60%
There is a strong presence of non explicit traceability between the software functions' documentation and their implementation in the PieDao source 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 documentation to code such that it is clear where each outlined function is coded in the source code. 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;
11) Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%) 12) Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%) 13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N) 14) Report of the results (%) 15) Formal Verification test done (%) 16) Stress Testing environment (%)

11) Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 100%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 281% testing to code (TtC).
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

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

Answer: 73%
PieDAO has an average code coverage percentage of 72.5 when adding up and averaging all coverage documented in their Quantstamp v1 and v2 audits.
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 improved by adding tests that achieve full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

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

Answer: Yes

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of a PieDao test result report in any of their GitHub repositories or documentation.
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.

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of a PieDAO Formal Verification test in their documentation.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
There is evidence of PieDAO's testnet smart contract usage at https://docs.piedao.org/technical/deployed-smart-contracts.

Security

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%) 18) Is the bounty value acceptably high?

17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 100%
PieDAO's has had 4 audits performed and published as seen from this GitHub repository. All of the reports were published before the specific contracts' mainnet launches.
Most fix recommendations were implemented by the PieDAO team.
Guidance: 100% Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 90% Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 70% Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50% Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented 20% No audit performed 0% Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of a PieDAO Bug Bounty program.
Guidance:
100% Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below) 90% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program 80% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k 70% Bounty is 100k or over AND active program 60% Bounty is 100k or over 50% Bounty is 50k or over AND active program 40% Bounty is 50k or over 20% Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k 0% No bug bounty program offered
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Access Controls

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. The questions this section asks are as follow;
19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the admin controls? 20) Is the information clear and complete? 21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments? 22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests?

19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 100%
PieDAO's governance section can clearly be found at https://docs.piedao.org/governance/dough.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled 20% Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled 0% Admin Control information could not be found

20) Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 90%
a) All smart pool contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable at https://docs.piedao.org/technical/updating-a-smart-pool-implementation
b) There is a description of the PieDAO MultiSig at https://docs.piedao.org/technical/multisigs.
c) Capabilities for change in contracts are described in software specific language; https://docs.piedao.org/technical/updating-a-smart-pool-implementation
Guidance: All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above. An example is enclosed.

21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 30%
PieDAO's provides this information in software specific language; https://docs.piedao.org/technical/updating-a-smart-pool-implementation
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable 90% Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software l language 30% Description all in software specific language 0% No admin control information could not be found

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 80%
Pause Controls is clearly explained at https://docs.piedao.org/technical/untitled#features-and-use-cases, but there is no evidence of any regular tests.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 100% Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months 80% Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests 40% Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests 0% Pause control not documented or explained

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.
Email : [email protected] 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

1
contract PV2SmartPool is IPV2SmartPool, PCToken, ReentryProtection {
2
using LibSafeApprove for IERC20;
3
4
event TokensApproved();
5
event ControllerChanged(address indexed previousController, address indexed newController);
6
event PublicSwapSetterChanged(address indexed previousSetter, address indexed newSetter);
7
event TokenBinderChanged(address indexed previousTokenBinder, address indexed newTokenBinder);
8
event PublicSwapSet(address indexed setter, bool indexed value);
9
event SwapFeeSet(address indexed setter, uint256 newFee);
10
event CapChanged(address indexed setter, uint256 oldCap, uint256 newCap);
11
event CircuitBreakerTripped();
12
event JoinExitEnabledChanged(address indexed setter, bool oldValue, bool newValue);
13
event CircuitBreakerChanged(
14
address indexed _oldCircuitBreaker,
15
address indexed _newCircuitBreaker
16
);
17
18
modifier ready() {
19
require(address(PBStorage.load().bPool) != address(0), "PV2SmartPool.ready: not ready");
20
_;
21
}
22
23
modifier onlyController() {
24
require(
25
msg.sender == PBStorage.load().controller,
26
"PV2SmartPool.onlyController: not controller"
27
);
28
_;
29
}
30
31
modifier onlyPublicSwapSetter() {
32
require(
33
msg.sender == PBStorage.load().publicSwapSetter,
34
"PV2SmartPool.onlyPublicSwapSetter: not public swap setter"
35
);
36
_;
37
}
38
39
modifier onlyTokenBinder() {
40
require(
41
msg.sender == PBStorage.load().tokenBinder,
42
"PV2SmartPool.onlyTokenBinder: not token binder"
43
);
44
_;
45
}
46
47
modifier onlyPublicSwap() {
48
require(
49
PBStorage.load().bPool.isPublicSwap(),
50
"PV2SmartPool.onlyPublicSwap: swapping not enabled"
51
);
52
_;
53
}
54
55
modifier onlyCircuitBreaker() {
56
require(
57
msg.sender == P2Storage.load().circuitBreaker,
58
"PV2SmartPool.onlyCircuitBreaker: not circuit breaker"
59
);
60
_;
61
}
62
63
modifier onlyJoinExitEnabled() {
64
require(
65
P2Storage.load().joinExitEnabled,
66
"PV2SmartPool.onlyJoinExitEnabled: join and exit not enabled"
67
);
68
_;
69
}
70
71
modifier withinCap() {
72
_;
73
require(totalSupply() < PCSStorage.load().cap, "PV2SmartPool.withinCap: Cap limit reached");
74
}
75
76
/**
77
@notice Initialises the contract
78
@param _bPool Address of the underlying balancer pool
79
@param _name Name for the smart pool token
80
@param _symbol Symbol for the smart pool token
81
@param _initialSupply Initial token supply to mint
82
*/
83
function init(
84
address _bPool,
85
string calldata _name,
86
string calldata _symbol,
87
uint256 _initialSupply
88
) external override {
89
PBStorage.StorageStruct storage s = PBStorage.load();
90
require(address(s.bPool) == address(0), "PV2SmartPool.init: already initialised");
91
require(_bPool != address(0), "PV2SmartPool.init: _bPool cannot be 0x00....000");
92
require(_initialSupply != 0, "PV2SmartPool.init: _initialSupply can not zero");
93
s.bPool = IBPool(_bPool);
94
s.controller = msg.sender;
95
s.publicSwapSetter = msg.sender;
96
s.tokenBinder = msg.sender;
97
PCStorage.load().name = _name;
98
PCStorage.load().symbol = _symbol;
99
100
LibPoolToken._mint(msg.sender, _initialSupply);
101
}
102
103
/**
104
@notice Sets approval to all tokens to the underlying balancer pool
105
@dev It uses this function to save on gas in joinPool
106
*/
107
function approveTokens() public override noReentry {
108
IBPool bPool = PBStorage.load().bPool;
109
address[] memory tokens = bPool.getCurrentTokens();
110
for (uint256 i = 0; i < tokens.length; i++) {
111
IERC20(tokens[i]).safeApprove(address(bPool), uint256(-1));
112
}
113
emit TokensApproved();
114
}
115
116
// POOL EXIT ------------------------------------------------
117
118
/**
119
@notice Burns pool shares and sends back the underlying assets leaving some in the pool
120
@param _amount Amount of pool tokens to burn
121
@param _lossTokens Tokens skipped on redemption
122
*/
123
function exitPoolTakingloss(uint256 _amount, address[] calldata _lossTokens)
124
external
125
override
126
ready
127
noReentry
128
onlyJoinExitEnabled
129
{
130
LibPoolEntryExit.exitPoolTakingloss(_amount, _lossTokens);
131
}
132
133
/**
134
@notice Burns pool shares and sends back the underlying assets
135
@param _amount Amount of pool tokens to burn
136
*/
137
function exitPool(uint256 _amount) external override ready noReentry onlyJoinExitEnabled {
138
LibPoolEntryExit.exitPool(_amount);
139
}
140
141
/**
142
@notice Burn pool tokens and redeem underlying assets. With front running protection
143
@param _amount Amount of pool tokens to burn
144
@param _minAmountsOut Minimum amounts of underlying assets
145
*/
146
function exitPool(uint256 _amount, uint256[] calldata _minAmountsOut)
147
external
148
override
149
ready
150
noReentry
151
onlyJoinExitEnabled
152
{
153
LibPoolEntryExit.exitPool(_amount, _minAmountsOut);
154
}
155
156
/**
157
@notice Exitswap single asset pool exit given pool amount in
158
@param _token Address of exit token
159
@param _poolAmountIn Amount of pool tokens sending to the pool
160
@return tokenAmountOut amount of exit tokens being withdrawn
161
*/
162
function exitswapPoolAmountIn(
163
address _token,
164
uint256 _poolAmountIn,
165
uint256 _minAmountOut
166
)
167
external
168
override
169
ready
170
noReentry
171
onlyPublicSwap
172
onlyJoinExitEnabled
173
returns (uint256 tokenAmountOut)
174
{
175
return LibPoolEntryExit.exitswapPoolAmountIn(_token, _poolAmountIn, _minAmountOut);
176
}
177
178
/**
179
@notice Exitswap single asset pool entry given token amount out
180
@param _token Address of exit token
181
@param _tokenAmountOut Amount of exit tokens
182
@return poolAmountIn amount of pool tokens being deposited
183
*/
184
function exitswapExternAmountOut(
185
address _token,
186
uint256 _tokenAmountOut,
187
uint256 _maxPoolAmountIn
188
)
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
11
1848
238
573
1037
65
Comments to Code 573/1037 = 55%

Javascript/TypeScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
6
114
29
6
79
1
TypeScript
12
3449
518
95
2836
56
Tests to Code 2915/1037 = 281%
Last modified 18d ago