Finished Reviews

TreeDefi Process Quality Review

Score: 38%

Overview

This is a TreeDefi Process Quality Review completed on June 30th 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.2) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nic of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 38%, a fail. 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: Binance Smart Chain

Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon

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? (%) 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: 20%

They have some wallet addresses at website https://docs.treedefi.info/faq-1/important-addresses as indicated in the Appendix. But the real contract addresses are only found in the emergency withdraw docs.

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 labelling 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 60 transactions a day on contract SeedVault.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

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

Answer: Yes

GitHub: https://github.com/treedefi​

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.

4) Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 0%

With 17 commits and 1 branch, this is an unhealthy 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 30 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.

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

Answer: No

Team is anonymous as described in https://docs.treedefi.info/team.

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;

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

Location: https://docs.treedefi.info/.

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

Answer: No

No basic software functions were found in their documentation.

How to improve this score

Write the document based on the deployed code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document.

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

Answer: 0%

No software function documentation was found.

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.

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

Answer: 81%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 81% 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: 0%

No software function documentation was found, and therefore we cannot trace their implementation in 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: 0%

No testing suite was found in their documentation.

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.

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

Answer: 0%

No test for coverage was found in their audits or in their GitHub repository.

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.

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

Answer: No

No test suite.

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.

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test report was found.

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%

No evidence of a TreeDefi Formal Verification test was found in their documentation or in web searches.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of test-net smart contract usage was found in their documentation.

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%

Certik published a TreeDefi audit report on June 22nd 2021.

​Hacken published a TreeDefi audit report on February 21st 2021.​

​TechRate published a TreeDefi audit report in March 2021.​

Note: TreeDefi was launched on March 15th 2021.

Note 2: Majority of fix recommendations were implemented.

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, question

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of a TreeDefi Bug Bounty program was found.

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

Active program means a third party actively driving hackers to the site. Inactive program would be static mention 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? 2`) 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: 70%

You can find it on p.11 of https://treedefi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Treedefi_litepaper.pdf, but it takes a bit of looking.

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: 10%

a) Contract is implied upgradeable because the docs mention the capability of upgrade through vote -- 10%

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: 20%

As there is very little Access Controls info available, a minimal score is given.

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: 0%

No Pause Control documentation was found and no evidence of tests in the TreeDefi GitHub.

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

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity 0.6.12;
​
// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Context.sol
​
/*
* @dev Provides information about the current execution context, including the
* sender of the transaction and its data. While these are generally available
* via msg.sender and msg.data, they should not be accessed in such a direct
* manner, since when dealing with GSN meta-transactions the account sending and
* paying for execution may not be the actual sender (as far as an application
* is concerned).
*
* This contract is only required for intermediate, library-like contracts.
*/
abstract contract Context {
function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address payable) {
return msg.sender;
}
​
function _msgData() internal view virtual returns (bytes memory) {
this; // silence state mutability warning without generating bytecode - see https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/2691
return msg.data;
}
}
​
// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/access/Ownable.sol
​
​
/**
* @dev Contract module which provides a basic access control mechanism, where
* there is an account (an owner) that can be granted exclusive access to
* specific functions.
*
* By default, the owner account will be the one that deploys the contract. This
* can later be changed with {transferOwnership}.
*
* This module is used through inheritance. It will make available the modifier
* `onlyOwner`, which can be applied to your functions to restrict their use to
* the owner.
*/
abstract contract Ownable is Context {
address private _owner;
​
event OwnershipTransferred(address indexed previousOwner, address indexed newOwner);
​
/**
* @dev Initializes the contract setting the deployer as the initial owner.
*/
constructor() internal {
address msgSender = _msgSender();
_owner = msgSender;
emit OwnershipTransferred(address(0), msgSender);
}
​
/**
* @dev Returns the address of the current owner.
*/
function owner() public view virtual returns (address) {
return _owner;
}
​
/**
* @dev Throws if called by any account other than the owner.
*/
modifier onlyOwner() {
require(owner() == _msgSender(), "Ownable: caller is not the owner");
_;
}
​
/**
* @dev Leaves the contract without owner. It will not be possible to call
* `onlyOwner` functions anymore. Can only be called by the current owner.
*
* NOTE: Renouncing ownership will leave the contract without an owner,
* thereby removing any functionality that is only available to the owner.
*/
function renounceOwnership() public virtual onlyOwner {
emit OwnershipTransferred(_owner, address(0));
_owner = address(0);
}
​
/**
* @dev Transfers ownership of the contract to a new account (`newOwner`).
* Can only be called by the current owner.
*/
function transferOwnership(address newOwner) public virtual onlyOwner {
require(newOwner != address(0), "Ownable: new owner is the zero address");
emit OwnershipTransferred(_owner, newOwner);
_owner = newOwner;
}
}
​
// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol
​
​
/**
* @dev Wrappers over Solidity's arithmetic operations with added overflow
* checks.
*
* Arithmetic operations in Solidity wrap on overflow. This can easily result
* in bugs, because programmers usually assume that an overflow raises an
* error, which is the standard behavior in high level programming languages.
* `SafeMath` restores this intuition by reverting the transaction when an
* operation overflows.
*
* Using this library instead of the unchecked operations eliminates an entire
* class of bugs, so it's recommended to use it always.
*/
library SafeMath {
/**
* @dev Returns the addition of two unsigned integers, with an overflow flag.
*
* _Available since v3.4._
*/
function tryAdd(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (bool, uint256) {
uint256 c = a + b;
if (c < a) return (false, 0);
return (true, c);
}
​
/**
* @dev Returns the substraction of two unsigned integers, with an overflow flag.
*
* _Available since v3.4._
*/
function trySub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (bool, uint256) {
if (b > a) return (false, 0);
return (true, a - b);
}
​
/**
* @dev Returns the multiplication of two unsigned integers, with an overflow flag.
*
* _Available since v3.4._
*/
function tryMul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (bool, uint256) {
// Gas optimization: this is cheaper than requiring 'a' not being zero, but the
// benefit is lost if 'b' is also tested.
// See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/522
if (a == 0) return (true, 0);
uint256 c = a * b;
if (c / a != b) return (false, 0);
return (true, c);
}
​
/**
* @dev Returns the division of two unsigned integers, with a division by zero flag.
*
* _Available since v3.4._
*/
function tryDiv(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (bool, uint256) {
if (b == 0) return (false, 0);
return (true, a / b);
}
​
/**
* @dev Returns the remainder of dividing two unsigned integers, with a division by zero flag.
*
* _Available since v3.4._
*/
function tryMod(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (bool, uint256) {
if (b == 0) return (false, 0);
return (true, a % b);

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

15

4783

653

1850

2280

214

Comments to Code 1850/2280 = 81%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tests to Code 0/0 = 0%