P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
BeethovenX Process Quality Review

Overview

This is a BeethovenX Process Quality Review completed on the 15th of November, 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 35%, 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 blockchains used by this protocol. This report covers all of the blockchains upon which the protocol is deployed.
Chain: Fantom
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%
BeethovenX contracts are easy to find.
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 2000+ transactions a day on contract Masterchef, 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%
At 100 commits and 3 branches, BeethovenX's development history is on its way to developing a rich opera that will spook even the most seasoned of gravediggers.
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

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
Location: The 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 (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: No
Software functions are not documented.

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%
The documents do not contain 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 be improved by adding content to the software functions 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: 21%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 21% 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: 40%
The documentation explains the protocol functions. There is no software documentation and there is no traceability.
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: 80%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 87% 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

How to improve this score:

This score can improved 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: 50%
No code coverage was found, but BeethovenX has clearly undergone testing.
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
Test scripts can be located at https://github.com/beethovenxfi/beethovenx-token.

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 formal verification was found.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
BeethovenX has documented deployment to a testnet.

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: 65%
No audit has been performed on BeethovenX's code. However, since it is a complete fork of audited Balancer code that is proven to be the exact same code, it receives points. This protocol sets an industry standard for proving that its code is forked and no changes have been made, and thus should be commended for this effort.
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%
BeethovenX's does not have a bug bounty. It relies on Balancer V2's bug bounty as it is a fork. Balancer's bug bounty only applies to Balancer code deployed on Ethereum mainnet, making this bug bounty inapplicable.
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%
Access control information is easy to find.
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%
The contracts are 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%

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

Answer: 100%
The contracts are immutable.
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 immutable.
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
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol";
2
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/structs/EnumerableSet.sol";
3
import "./BeethovenxToken.sol";
4
import "../interfaces/IRewarder.sol";
5
6
/*
7
This master chef is based on SUSHI's version with some adjustments:
8
- Upgrade to pragma 0.8.7
9
- therefore remove usage of SafeMath (built in overflow check for solidity > 8)
10
- Merge sushi's master chef V1 & V2 (no usage of dummy pool)
11
- remove withdraw function (without harvest) => requires the rewardDebt to be an signed int instead of uint which requires a lot of casting and has no real usecase for us
12
- no dev emissions, but treasury emissions instead
13
- treasury percentage is subtracted from emissions instead of added on top
14
- update of emission rate with upper limit of 6 BEETS/block
15
- more require checks in general
16
*/
17
18
// Have fun reading it. Hopefully it's still bug-free
19
contract BeethovenxMasterChef is Ownable {
20
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
21
using EnumerableSet for EnumerableSet.AddressSet;
22
23
// Info of each user.
24
struct UserInfo {
25
uint256 amount; // How many LP tokens the user has provided.
26
uint256 rewardDebt; // Reward debt. See explanation below.
27
//
28
// We do some fancy math here. Basically, any point in time, the amount of BEETS
29
// entitled to a user but is pending to be distributed is:
30
//
31
// pending reward = (user.amount * pool.accBeetsPerShare) - user.rewardDebt
32
//
33
// Whenever a user deposits or withdraws LP tokens to a pool. Here's what happens:
34
// 1. The pool's `accBeetsPerShare` (and `lastRewardBlock`) gets updated.
35
// 2. User receives the pending reward sent to his/her address.
36
// 3. User's `amount` gets updated.
37
// 4. User's `rewardDebt` gets updated.
38
}
39
// Info of each pool.
40
struct PoolInfo {
41
// we have a fixed number of BEETS tokens released per block, each pool gets his fraction based on the allocPoint
42
uint256 allocPoint; // How many allocation points assigned to this pool. the fraction BEETS to distribute per block.
43
uint256 lastRewardBlock; // Last block number that BEETS distribution occurs.
44
uint256 accBeetsPerShare; // Accumulated BEETS per LP share. this is multiplied by ACC_BEETS_PRECISION for more exact results (rounding errors)
45
}
46
// The BEETS TOKEN!
47
BeethovenxToken public beets;
48
49
// Treasury address.
50
address public treasuryAddress;
51
52
// BEETS tokens created per block.
53
uint256 public beetsPerBlock;
54
55
uint256 private constant ACC_BEETS_PRECISION = 1e12;
56
57
// distribution percentages: a value of 1000 = 100%
58
// 12.8% percentage of pool rewards that goes to the treasury.
59
uint256 public constant TREASURY_PERCENTAGE = 128;
60
61
// 87.2% percentage of pool rewards that goes to LP holders.
62
uint256 public constant POOL_PERCENTAGE = 872;
63
64
// Info of each pool.
65
PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
66
// Info of each user that stakes LP tokens per pool. poolId => address => userInfo
67
/// @notice Address of the LP token for each MCV pool.
68
IERC20[] public lpTokens;
69
70
EnumerableSet.AddressSet private lpTokenAddresses;
71
72
/// @notice Address of each `IRewarder` contract in MCV.
73
IRewarder[] public rewarder;
74
75
mapping(uint256 => mapping(address => UserInfo)) public userInfo; // mapping form poolId => user Address => User Info
76
// Total allocation points. Must be the sum of all allocation points in all pools.
77
uint256 public totalAllocPoint = 0;
78
// The block number when BEETS mining starts.
79
uint256 public startBlock;
80
81
event Deposit(
82
address indexed user,
83
uint256 indexed pid,
84
uint256 amount,
85
address indexed to
86
);
87
event Withdraw(
88
address indexed user,
89
uint256 indexed pid,
90
uint256 amount,
91
address indexed to
92
);
93
event EmergencyWithdraw(
94
address indexed user,
95
uint256 indexed pid,
96
uint256 amount,
97
address indexed to
98
);
99
event Harvest(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
100
event LogPoolAddition(
101
uint256 indexed pid,
102
uint256 allocPoint,
103
IERC20 indexed lpToken,
104
IRewarder indexed rewarder
105
);
106
event LogSetPool(
107
uint256 indexed pid,
108
uint256 allocPoint,
109
IRewarder indexed rewarder,
110
bool overwrite
111
);
112
event LogUpdatePool(
113
uint256 indexed pid,
114
uint256 lastRewardBlock,
115
uint256 lpSupply,
116
uint256 accBeetsPerShare
117
);
118
event SetTreasuryAddress(
119
address indexed oldAddress,
120
address indexed newAddress
121
);
122
event UpdateEmissionRate(address indexed user, uint256 _beetsPerSec);
123
124
constructor(
125
BeethovenxToken _beets,
126
address _treasuryAddress,
127
uint256 _beetsPerBlock,
128
uint256 _startBlock
129
) {
130
require(
131
_beetsPerBlock <= 6e18,
132
"maximum emission rate of 6 beets per block exceeded"
133
);
134
beets = _beets;
135
treasuryAddress = _treasuryAddress;
136
beetsPerBlock = _beetsPerBlock;
137
startBlock = _startBlock;
138
}
139
140
function poolLength() external view returns (uint256) {
141
return poolInfo.length;
142
}
143
144
// Add a new lp to the pool. Can only be called by the owner.
145
function add(
146
uint256 _allocPoint,
147
IERC20 _lpToken,
148
IRewarder _rewarder
149
) public onlyOwner {
150
require(
151
Address.isContract(address(_lpToken)),
152
"add: LP token must be a valid contract"
153
);
154
require(
155
Address.isContract(address(_rewarder)) ||
156
address(_rewarder) == address(0),
157
"add: rewarder must be contract or zero"
158
);
159
// we make sure the same LP cannot be added twice which would cause trouble
160
require(
161
!lpTokenAddresses.contains(address(_lpToken)),
162
"add: LP already added"
163
);
164
165
// respect startBlock!
166
uint256 lastRewardBlock = block.number > startBlock
167
? block.number
168
: startBlock;
169
totalAllocPoint = totalAllocPoint + _allocPoint;
170
171
// LP tokens, rewarders & pools are always on the same index which translates into the pid
172
lpTokens.push(_lpToken);
173
lpTokenAddresses.add(address(_lpToken));
174
rewarder.push(_rewarder);
175
176
poolInfo.push(
177
PoolInfo({
178
allocPoint: _allocPoint,
179
lastRewardBlock: lastRewardBlock,
180
accBeetsPerShare: 0
181
})
182
);
183
emit LogPoolAddition(
184
lpTokens.length - 1,
185
_allocPoint,
186
_lpToken,
187
_rewarder
188
);
189
}
190
191
// Update the given pool's BEETS allocation point. Can only be called by the owner.
192
/// @param _pid The index of the pool. See `poolInfo`.
193
/// @param _allocPoint New AP of the pool.
194
/// @param _rewarder Address of the rewarder delegate.
195
/// @param overwrite True if _rewarder should be `set`. Otherwise `_rewarder` is ignored.
196
function set(
197
uint256 _pid,
198
uint256 _allocPoint,
199
IRewarder _rewarder,
200
bool overwrite
201
) public onlyOwner {
202
require(
203
Address.isContract(address(_rewarder)) ||
204
address(_rewarder) == address(0),
205
"set: rewarder must be contract or zero"
206
);
207
208
// we re-adjust the total allocation points
209
totalAllocPoint =
210
totalAllocPoint -
211
poolInfo[_pid].allocPoint +
212
_allocPoint;
213
214
poolInfo[_pid].allocPoint = _allocPoint;
215
216
if (overwrite) {
217
rewarder[_pid] = _rewarder;
218
}
219
emit LogSetPool(
220
_pid,
221
_allocPoint,
222
overwrite ? _rewarder : rewarder[_pid],
223
overwrite
224
);
225
}
226
227
// View function to see pending BEETS on frontend.
228
function pendingBeets(uint256 _pid, address _user)
229
external
230
view
231
returns (uint256 pending)
232
{
233
PoolInfo storage pool = poolInfo[_pid];
234
UserInfo storage user = userInfo[_pid][_user];
235
// how many BEETS per lp token
236
uint256 accBeetsPerShare = pool.accBeetsPerShare;
237
// total staked lp tokens in this pool
238
uint256 lpSupply = lpTokens[_pid].balanceOf(address(this));
239
240
if (block.number > pool.lastRewardBlock && lpSupply != 0) {
241
uint256 blocksSinceLastReward = block.number - pool.lastRewardBlock;
242
// based on the pool weight (allocation points) we calculate the beets rewarded for this specific pool
243
uint256 beetsRewards = (blocksSinceLastReward *
244
beetsPerBlock *
245
pool.allocPoint) / totalAllocPoint;
246
247
/ we take parts of the rewards for treasury, these can be subject to change, so we recalculate it
248
/ a value of 1000 = 100%
249
uint256 beetsRewardsForPool = (beetsRewards * POOL_PERCENTAGE) /
250
1000;
251
252
// we calculate the new amount of accumulated beets per LP token
253
accBeetsPerShare =
254
accBeetsPerShare +
255
((beetsRewardsForPool * ACC_BEETS_PRECISION) / lpSupply);
256
}
257
// based on the number of LP tokens the user owns, we calculate the pending amount by subtracting the amount
258
// which he is not eligible for (joined the pool later) or has already harvested
259
pending =
260
(user.amount * accBeetsPerShare) /
261
ACC_BEETS_PRECISION -
262
user.rewardDebt;
263
}
264
265
/// @notice Update reward variables for all pools. Be careful of gas spending!
266
/// @param pids Pool IDs of all to be updated. Make sure to update all active pools.
267
function massUpdatePools(uint256[] calldata pids) external {
268
uint256 len = pids.length;
269
for (uint256 i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
270
updatePool(pids[i]);
271
}
272
}
273
274
// Update reward variables of the given pool to be up-to-date.
275
function updatePool(uint256 _pid) public returns (PoolInfo memory pool) {
276
pool = poolInfo[_pid];
277
278
if (block.number > pool.lastRewardBlock) {
279
// total lp tokens staked for this pool
280
uint256 lpSupply = lpTokens[_pid].balanceOf(address(this));
281
if (lpSupply > 0) {
282
uint256 blocksSinceLastReward = block.number -
283
pool.lastRewardBlock;
284
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
4
1087
149
161
777
58
Comments to Code 161/777 = 21%

Typescript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
4
1348
278
120
950
0
Tests to Code 950/1087 = 87%
Last modified 5d ago