This is a Saffron Finance Process Quality Review completed on 19 December 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6.1) and is documented here. The review was performed by Lucas of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 31%, a real low score. 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)

Location: https://github.com/saffron-finance/saffron/blob/master/CONTRACTS.md​

The mainnet addresses are included 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? (%)

Address 0x92d5521E29d4776a2FEe821B25c93D8f6Cc7D390, the Saffron Staking pool is being used more than 10 times a day over the past weeks average 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)

Github: https://github.com/saffron-finance/saffron​

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? (%)

With 21 commits and 1 branch, this is not a very 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 Saffron Finance 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)

Location: https://medium.com/saffron-finance/introduction-to-saffron-9a46f2693612​

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)

There is no evidence of software function documentation.

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? (%)

Thre is no evidence of software function 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 (%)

The CtC ratio is 103%, a solid indication of excellent comment quality. Comments within the code do a good job at further elaborating on the nature of particular functions.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 103% 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 no evidence of software documentation with connection to 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? (%)

There is no apparent test suite in Saffron Finance github. There are no references to any testing in their documentation or on their website.

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) (%)

Since there is no testing apparent, there is no indication of code coverage.

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)

Since there is no apparent test suite availible, there are no scripts or installations availible.

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)

Since there's no test suite, it is not packaged with the deployed code.

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 (%)

As there is no apparent test suite, there is no report of the results.

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 any formal verification testing having been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

It is impossible to verify stress testing as there is no published mainnet, kovan, or ropsten addresses.

Audits

Since there is no indication of any published contract addresses, it is impossible to verify the validity of any audit that has been done on this product.

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 Lucas 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

Contract Addresses

Contract Usage

Example Code Appendix

​
​
pragma solidity ^0.7.1;
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
// v0: all functions returns the only adapter that exists
// v1: evaluate adapters by interest rate and return the best one possible per currency
contract SaffronStrategy is ISaffronStrategy {
  using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
  using SafeMath for uint256;
​
  address public governance;
  address public team_address;
  address public SFI_address;
  address[] public pools;
  address[] public adapters;
  mapping(address=>uint256) private adapter_indexes;
  mapping(uint256=>address) private adapter_addresses;
​
  // True if epoch has been wound down already
  mapping(uint256=>bool) public epoch_wound_down;
​
  uint256 public last_deploy;     // Last run of Hourly Deploy
  uint256 public deploy_interval; // Hourly deploy interval
​
  epoch_params public epoch_cycle = epoch_params({
    start_date: 1604239200,   // 11/01/2020 @ 2:00pm (UTC)
    duration:   14 days       // 1210000 seconds
  });
​
  constructor(address _sfi_address, address _team_address, bool epoch_cycle_reset) {
    governance = msg.sender;
    team_address = _team_address;
    SFI_address = _sfi_address;
    deploy_interval = 1 hours;
    epoch_cycle.duration = (epoch_cycle_reset ? 30 minutes : 14 days); // Make testing previous epochs easier
    epoch_cycle.start_date = (epoch_cycle_reset ? (block.timestamp) - (2 * epoch_cycle.duration) : 1604239200); // Make testing previous epochs easier
  }
​
  // Select best adapter based on APY
  function select_best_adapter(address base_asset_address) public view returns(address) {
    require(base_asset_address != address(0x0), "can't have an adapter for 0x0 address");
    return adapters[0]; // v0: only one adapter
  }
​
  function wind_down_epoch(uint256 epoch) external {
    require(epoch == 2, "v1.2: only epoch 2");
    require(!epoch_wound_down[epoch], "epoch already wound down");
    require(team_address == msg.sender, "must be team");
    uint256 current_epoch = get_current_epoch();
    require(epoch < current_epoch, "cannot wind down future epoch");
​
    // Team Funds
    uint256 team_sfi = (10000 * 1 ether) >> epoch;
    SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(team_address, team_sfi);
​
    // DAI Pool (2000 SFI)
    uint256 dSFI = (2750 * 1 ether);
    SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[0], dSFI);
    ISaffronPool(pools[0]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, dSFI);
​
    // SFI/ETH Uniswap LP Pool (3750 SFI)
    uint256 lpSFI = (3000 * 1 ether);
    SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[1], lpSFI);
    ISaffronPool(pools[1]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, lpSFI);
​
    // SFI Staking Pool (862 SFI)
    uint256 sSFI = (862 * 1 ether);
    SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[2], sSFI);
    ISaffronPool(pools[2]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, sSFI);
​
    // SFI/BTSE Uniswap LP Pool (888 SFI)
    uint256 btseSFI = (888 * 1 ether);
    SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[3], btseSFI);
    ISaffronPool(pools[3]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, btseSFI);
​
    epoch_wound_down[epoch] = true;
  }
​
  function wind_down_pool(uint256 pool, uint256 epoch) external {
    require(msg.sender == team_address, "must be team");
    uint256 current_epoch = get_current_epoch();
    require(epoch < current_epoch, "cannot wind down future epoch");
​
    if (pool == 0) { // DAI Pool
      uint256 dSFI = (2750 * 1 ether);
      SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[0], dSFI);
      ISaffronPool(pools[0]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, dSFI);
    }
​
    if (pool == 1) { // SFI/ETH Uniswap LP Pool
      uint256 lpSFI = (3000 * 1 ether);
      SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[1], lpSFI);
      ISaffronPool(pools[1]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, lpSFI);
    }
​
    if (pool == 2) { // SFI Staking Pool
      uint256 sSFI = (862 * 1 ether);
      SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[2], sSFI);
      ISaffronPool(pools[2]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, sSFI);
    }
​
    if (pool == 3) { // SFI/BTSE Uniswap LP Pool
      uint256 btseSFI = (888 * 1 ether);
      SFI(SFI_address).mint_SFI(pools[3], btseSFI);
      ISaffronPool(pools[3]).wind_down_epoch(epoch, btseSFI);
    }
  }
​
  // Deploy all capital in pool (funnel 100% of pooled base assets into best adapter)
  function deploy_all_capital() external override {
    require(block.timestamp >= last_deploy + (deploy_interval), "deploy call too soon" );
    last_deploy = block.timestamp;
    ISaffronPool pool = ISaffronPool(pools[0]);
    IERC20 base_asset = IERC20(pool.get_base_asset_address());
    if (base_asset.balanceOf(pools[0]) > 0) pool.hourly_strategy(adapters[0]);
  }
​
  function v01_final_deploy() external {
    require(msg.sender == governance, "must be governance");
    for (uint256 i = 0; i < pools.length; i++) {
      ISaffronPool pool = ISaffronPool(pools[i]);
      IERC20 base_asset = IERC20(pool.get_base_asset_address());
      if (base_asset.balanceOf(address(pool)) > 0) pool.hourly_strategy(select_best_adapter(address(base_asset)));
      pool.shutdown();
    }
  }
​
  // Add adapters to a list of adapters passed in
  function add_adapter(address adapter_address) external override {
    require(msg.sender == governance, "add_adapter: must be governance");
    adapter_indexes[adapter_address] = adapters.length;
    adapters.push(adapter_address);
  }
​
  // Get an adapter's address by index
  function get_adapter_index(address adapter_address) public view returns(uint256) {
    return adapter_indexes[adapter_address];
  }
​
  // Get an adapter's address by index
  function get_adapter_address(uint256 index) external view override returns(address) {
    return address(adapters[index]);
  }
​
  function add_pool(address pool_address) external override {
    require(msg.sender == governance, "add_pool: must be governance");
    pools.push(pool_address);
  }
​
  function delete_adapters() external override {
    require(msg.sender == governance, "delete_adapters: must be governance");
    delete adapters;
  }
​
  function set_team_address(address to) public {
    require(msg.sender == governance || msg.sender == team_address, "permission");
    team_address = to;
  }
​
  function set_governance(address to) external override {
    require(msg.sender == governance, "set_governance: must be governance");
    governance = to;
  }
​
  function select_adapter_for_liquidity_removal() external view override returns(address) {
    return adapters[0]; // v0: only one adapter
  }
  // v1.5 add replace adapter function
  // v1.5 add remove adapter function
​
  /*** TIME UTILITY FUNCTIONS ***/
  function get_epoch_end(uint256 epoch) public view returns (uint256) {
    return epoch_cycle.start_date.add(epoch.add(1).mul(epoch_cycle.duration));
  }
​
  function get_current_epoch() public view returns (uint256) {
    require(block.timestamp > epoch_cycle.start_date, "before epoch 0");
    return (block.timestamp - epoch_cycle.start_date) / epoch_cycle.duration;
  }
​
  function get_seconds_until_epoch_end(uint256 epoch) public view returns (uint256) {
    return epoch_cycle.start_date.add(epoch.add(1).mul(epoch_cycle.duration)).sub(block.timestamp);
  }
​
  event ErcSwept(address who, address to, address token, uint256 amount);
  function erc_sweep(address _token, address _to) public {
    require(msg.sender == governance, "must be governance");
​
    IERC20 tkn = IERC20(_token);
    uint256 tBal = tkn.balanceOf(address(this));
    tkn.safeTransfer(_to, tBal);
​
    emit ErcSwept(msg.sender, _to, _token, tBal);
  }
}
​

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Comments to Code 1973 / 1913 = 103%

Javascript Tests

Tests to Code 1358 / 1959 = 70%