P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Bancor Process Quality Review
Score: 90%

Overview

This is a Bancor Process Quality Review completed on July 21st 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 previous review (0.6) is here.
The final score of the review is 90%, an excellent 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
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche

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% 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 transactions a day on contract ContractRegistry.sol, 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 4836 commits and 11 branches, this is a healthy software 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
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
The basic software functions of Bancor Protocol are well documented in "Developer Quick Start".

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

Answer: 100%
Every single software function of Bancor Protocol is fully documented. Developer, architecture, API, SDK, and other.
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: 71%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 71% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Note: The CtC was calculated using code that was authored by Bancor, and did not include Interface files, or any third party resources in our calculations (ex: SafeMath).
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: 100%
There is clear and explicit traceability between Bancor Protocol's documented software functions and their subsequent implementation in their source code. Good examples of this traceability are the Developer Quick Start, and the API Reference.
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

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 261% 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: 90%
Bancor has received v2 code coverage from ConsenSys Diligence in their audit report. However, it is not the full coverage and does not explain misses or uncovered lines.
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

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

Answer: Yes

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 100%
Detailed test report was found here, as well as a more extensive report in the ConsenSys Diligence audit report.
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
No evidence of a Bancor Formal Verification has been found in their documentation or in web searches.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

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%
Bancor Protocol has had multiple audits before deployment, both V1 and V2, as well as 2.1. A full list of reports can be found here.
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
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: 70%
Bancor's Bug Bounty program is active and offers up to 100k for the most critical of finds.
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%
The Bancor Protocol governance portal is clearly indicated on their website.
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: 50%
a) All contracts are clearly upgradeable through the DAO. 30%
b) Bancor has a multisig through which it appears DAO changes are implemented 20%
c) Capabilities for change not clearly described. 0%
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: 90%
All governance and access control-related information is usually explained in user-friendly words.
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%
There is no evidence of Pause Control or a similar function documented in the Bancor documentation.
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
/**
2
* @dev This contract maintains contract addresses by name.
3
*
4
* The owner can update contract addresses so that a contract name always points to the latest version
5
* of the given contract.
6
*
7
* Other contracts can query the registry to get updated addresses instead of depending on specific
8
* addresses.
9
*
10
* Note that contract names are limited to 32 bytes UTF8 encoded ASCII strings to optimize gas costs
11
*/
12
contract ContractRegistry is IContractRegistry, Owned, Utils {
13
struct RegistryItem {
14
address contractAddress; // contract address
15
uint256 nameIndex; // index of the item in the list of contract names
16
}
17
18
mapping(bytes32 => RegistryItem) private items; // name -> RegistryItem mapping
19
string[] public contractNames; // list of all registered contract names
20
21
/**
22
* @dev triggered when an address pointed to by a contract name is modified
23
*
24
* @param _contractName contract name
25
* @param _contractAddress new contract address
26
*/
27
event AddressUpdate(bytes32 indexed _contractName, address _contractAddress);
28
29
/**
30
* @dev returns the number of items in the registry
31
*
32
* @return number of items
33
*/
34
function itemCount() public view returns (uint256) {
35
return contractNames.length;
36
}
37
38
/**
39
* @dev returns the address associated with the given contract name
40
*
41
* @param _contractName contract name
42
*
43
* @return contract address
44
*/
45
function addressOf(bytes32 _contractName) public view override returns (address) {
46
return items[_contractName].contractAddress;
47
}
48
49
/**
50
* @dev registers a new address for the contract name in the registry
51
*
52
* @param _contractName contract name
53
* @param _contractAddress contract address
54
*/
55
function registerAddress(bytes32 _contractName, address _contractAddress)
56
public
57
ownerOnly
58
validAddress(_contractAddress)
59
{
60
// validate input
61
require(_contractName.length > 0, "ERR_INVALID_NAME");
62
63
// check if any change is needed
64
address currentAddress = items[_contractName].contractAddress;
65
if (_contractAddress == currentAddress) {
66
return;
67
}
68
69
if (currentAddress == address(0)) {
70
// update the item's index in the list
71
items[_contractName].nameIndex = contractNames.length;
72
73
// add the contract name to the name list
74
contractNames.push(bytes32ToString(_contractName));
75
}
76
77
// update the address in the registry
78
items[_contractName].contractAddress = _contractAddress;
79
80
// dispatch the address update event
81
emit AddressUpdate(_contractName, _contractAddress);
82
}
83
84
/**
85
* @dev removes an existing contract address from the registry
86
*
87
* @param _contractName contract name
88
*/
89
function unregisterAddress(bytes32 _contractName) public ownerOnly {
90
// validate input
91
require(_contractName.length > 0, "ERR_INVALID_NAME");
92
require(items[_contractName].contractAddress != address(0), "ERR_INVALID_NAME");
93
94
// remove the address from the registry
95
items[_contractName].contractAddress = address(0);
96
97
/ if there are multiple items in the registry, move the last element to the deleted element's position
98
/ and modify last element's registryItem.nameIndex in the items collection to point to the right position in contractNames
99
if (contractNames.length > 1) {
100
string memory lastContractNameString = contractNames[contractNames.length - 1];
101
uint256 unregisterIndex = items[_contractName].nameIndex;
102
103
contractNames[unregisterIndex] = lastContractNameString;
104
bytes32 lastContractName = stringToBytes32(lastContractNameString);
105
RegistryItem storage registryItem = items[lastContractName];
106
registryItem.nameIndex = unregisterIndex;
107
}
108
109
// remove the last element from the name list
110
contractNames.pop();
111
// zero the deleted element's index
112
items[_contractName].nameIndex = 0;
113
114
// dispatch the address update event
115
emit AddressUpdate(_contractName, address(0));
116
}
117
118
/**
119
* @dev utility, converts bytes32 to a string
120
* note that the bytes32 argument is assumed to be UTF8 encoded ASCII string
121
*
122
* @return string representation of the given bytes32 argument
123
*/
124
function bytes32ToString(bytes32 _bytes) private pure returns (string memory) {
125
bytes memory byteArray = new bytes(32);
126
for (uint256 i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
127
byteArray[i] = _bytes[i];
128
}
129
130
return string(byteArray);
131
}
132
133
/**
134
* @dev utility, converts string to bytes32
135
* note that the bytes32 argument is assumed to be UTF8 encoded ASCII string
136
*
137
* @return string representation of the given bytes32 argument
138
*/
139
function stringToBytes32(string memory _string) private pure returns (bytes32) {
140
bytes32 result;
141
assembly {
142
result := mload(add(_string, 32))
143
}
144
return result;
145
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
37
11025
1295
4050
5680
546
Comments to Code 4050/5680 = 71%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
62
17736
2689
231
14816
708
Tests to Code 14816/5680 = 261%
Last modified 5d ago