P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
Pool Together 3.0 Process Quality Review
Score: 91%

Overview

This is a Pool Together Process Quality Review completed on 14/09/2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nick of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 91%, 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, Polygon, Binance Smart Chain, Celo

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%
Guidance: 100% 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 177 transactions a day on Polygon contract 0xEE06AbE9e2Af61cabcb13170e01266Af2DEFa946, 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: Yes
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 878 commits and 30 branches, this is clearly a well-maintained repository.
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
Location: Protocol members are clearly listed in their medium articles.
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

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

Answer: 100%
All contracts and functions are clearly explained with well-ordered and robust 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

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

Answer: 38%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 38% 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 nonexplicit traceability between the code and the documentation at a requirement level for all 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;
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 171% 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: 94%
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: 70%
Coveralls test report can be found at https://coveralls.io/jobs/87058204.
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 formal verification.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
There is evidence of stress testing on the Rinkeby Testnet for many protocol versions.

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%
PoolTogether has undergone three external audits. Open Zeppelin has audited the protocol twice, and ditCraft has once - though no proof could be found for this third audit.
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: 20%
There is a bug bounty program offering up to $25,000.
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%
Controls are clearly detailed in the docs here: https://docs.pooltogether.com/governance/controls
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: 100%
All Contracts are clearly labelled as non upgreadeable, AKA immutable.
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: 100%
All contracts are clearly labelled as non-upgradeable.
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: 100%
All contracts are clearly labelled as non-upgradeable.
Pause controls are mentioned in the audits performed by OpenZeppelin, but no evidence or detail on capabilities of 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
abstract contract PrizePool is PrizePoolInterface, OwnableUpgradeable, ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable, TokenControllerInterface, IERC721ReceiverUpgradeable {
2
using SafeMathUpgradeable for uint256;
3
using SafeCastUpgradeable for uint256;
4
using SafeERC20Upgradeable for IERC20Upgradeable;
5
using SafeERC20Upgradeable for IERC721Upgradeable;
6
using MappedSinglyLinkedList for MappedSinglyLinkedList.Mapping;
7
using ERC165CheckerUpgradeable for address;
8
9
/// @dev Emitted when an instance is initialized
10
event Initialized(
11
address reserveRegistry,
12
uint256 maxExitFeeMantissa
13
);
14
15
/// @dev Event emitted when controlled token is added
16
event ControlledTokenAdded(
17
ControlledTokenInterface indexed token
18
);
19
20
/// @dev Emitted when reserve is captured.
21
event ReserveFeeCaptured(
22
uint256 amount
23
);
24
25
event AwardCaptured(
26
uint256 amount
27
);
28
29
/// @dev Event emitted when assets are deposited
30
event Deposited(
31
address indexed operator,
32
address indexed to,
33
address indexed token,
34
uint256 amount,
35
address referrer
36
);
37
38
/// @dev Event emitted when interest is awarded to a winner
39
event Awarded(
40
address indexed winner,
41
address indexed token,
42
uint256 amount
43
);
44
45
/// @dev Event emitted when external ERC20s are awarded to a winner
46
event AwardedExternalERC20(
47
address indexed winner,
48
address indexed token,
49
uint256 amount
50
);
51
52
/// @dev Event emitted when external ERC20s are transferred out
53
event TransferredExternalERC20(
54
address indexed to,
55
address indexed token,
56
uint256 amount
57
);
58
59
/// @dev Event emitted when external ERC721s are awarded to a winner
60
event AwardedExternalERC721(
61
address indexed winner,
62
address indexed token,
63
uint256[] tokenIds
64
);
65
66
/// @dev Event emitted when assets are withdrawn instantly
67
event InstantWithdrawal(
68
address indexed operator,
69
address indexed from,
70
address indexed token,
71
uint256 amount,
72
uint256 redeemed,
73
uint256 exitFee
74
);
75
76
event ReserveWithdrawal(
77
address indexed to,
78
uint256 amount
79
);
80
81
/// @dev Event emitted when the Liquidity Cap is set
82
event LiquidityCapSet(
83
uint256 liquidityCap
84
);
85
86
/// @dev Event emitted when the Credit plan is set
87
event CreditPlanSet(
88
address token,
89
uint128 creditLimitMantissa,
90
uint128 creditRateMantissa
91
);
92
93
/// @dev Event emitted when the Prize Strategy is set
94
event PrizeStrategySet(
95
address indexed prizeStrategy
96
);
97
98
/// @dev Emitted when credit is minted
99
event CreditMinted(
100
address indexed user,
101
address indexed token,
102
uint256 amount
103
);
104
105
/// @dev Emitted when credit is burned
106
event CreditBurned(
107
address indexed user,
108
address indexed token,
109
uint256 amount
110
);
111
112
/// @dev Emitted when there was an error thrown awarding an External ERC721
113
event ErrorAwardingExternalERC721(bytes error);
114
115
116
struct CreditPlan {
117
uint128 creditLimitMantissa;
118
uint128 creditRateMantissa;
119
}
120
121
struct CreditBalance {
122
uint192 balance;
123
uint32 timestamp;
124
bool initialized;
125
}
126
127
/// @notice Semver Version
128
string constant public VERSION = "3.4.5";
129
130
/// @dev Reserve to which reserve fees are sent
131
RegistryInterface public reserveRegistry;
132
133
/// @dev An array of all the controlled tokens
134
ControlledTokenInterface[] internal _tokens;
135
136
/// @dev The Prize Strategy that this Prize Pool is bound to.
137
TokenListenerInterface public prizeStrategy;
138
139
/// @dev The maximum possible exit fee fraction as a fixed point 18 number.
140
/// For example, if the maxExitFeeMantissa is "0.1 ether", then the maximum exit fee for a withdrawal of 100 Dai will be 10 Dai
141
uint256 public maxExitFeeMantissa;
142
143
/// @dev The total funds that have been allocated to the reserve
144
uint256 public reserveTotalSupply;
145
146
/// @dev The total amount of funds that the prize pool can hold.
147
uint256 public liquidityCap;
148
149
/// @dev the The awardable balance
150
uint256 internal _currentAwardBalance;
151
152
/// @dev Stores the credit plan for each token.
153
mapping(address => CreditPlan) internal _tokenCreditPlans;
154
155
/// @dev Stores each users balance of credit per token.
156
mapping(address => mapping(address => CreditBalance)) internal _tokenCreditBalances;
157
158
/// @notice Initializes the Prize Pool
159
/// @param _controlledTokens Array of ControlledTokens that are controlled by this Prize Pool.
160
/// @param _maxExitFeeMantissa The maximum exit fee size
161
function initialize (
162
RegistryInterface _reserveRegistry,
163
ControlledTokenInterface[] memory _controlledTokens,
164
uint256 _maxExitFeeMantissa
165
)
166
public
167
initializer
168
{
169
require(address(_reserveRegistry) != address(0), "PrizePool/reserveRegistry-not-zero");
170
uint256 controlledTokensLength = _controlledTokens.length;
171
_tokens = new ControlledTokenInterface[](controlledTokensLength);
172
173
for (uint256 i = 0; i < controlledTokensLength; i++) {
174
ControlledTokenInterface controlledToken = _controlledTokens[i];
175
_addControlledToken(controlledToken, i);
176
}
177
__Ownable_init();
178
__ReentrancyGuard_init();
179
_setLiquidityCap(uint256(-1));
180
181
reserveRegistry = _reserveRegistry;
182
maxExitFeeMantissa = _maxExitFeeMantissa;
183
184
emit Initialized(
185
address(_reserveRegistry),
186
maxExitFeeMantissa
187
);
188
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
36
3762
612
869
2281
217
Comments to Code 869/2281 = 38%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
44
5125
1059
161
3905
65
Tests to Code 3905/2281 = 171%
Last modified 19d ago