P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
benQi Process Quality Review
Score: 50

Overview

This is a benQi Process Quality Review completed on 04/11/2021. 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 50%, 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: Avalanche
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%
They are available at website https://docs.benqi.fi/contracts, as indicated in the Appendix.
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 significantly more than 10 transactions a day on contract Comptroller, 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: 0%
At 4 commits and 1 branch, benQi's development history is not as expansive as its TVL necessitates.
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: 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: No
No software functions are detailed.

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 is present.
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: 63%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 63% 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%
There is no documentation of code function aside from identification without elaboration.
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: 0%
No evidence of testing was found.
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: 0%
There is no evidence of any testing on benQi.
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: No
Neither scripts nor instructions were found.

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 conducted.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%
No evidence of stress testing was found.

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: 90%
One audit was conducted before deployment, though it is unclear if the findings 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, (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%
There is no bug bounty offered by benQi.
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: 40%
A brief mention of access controls was identified under governance, but there is no explicit mention of them. While the protocol is "decentralising", it is unclear where it is down this path. This is unclear information.
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: 23%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 0% -- no contracts are identified as upgradeable. b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 3% -- it is unclear who owns the contracts c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 20% -- some capabilities for change are identified.
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%
This information is very clear.
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 was documented.
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
contract Comptroller is ComptrollerVXStorage, ComptrollerInterface, ComptrollerErrorReporter, ExponentialNoError {
2
/// @notice Emitted when an admin supports a market
3
event MarketListed(QiToken qiToken);
4
5
/// @notice Emitted when an account enters a market
6
event MarketEntered(QiToken qiToken, address account);
7
8
/// @notice Emitted when an account exits a market
9
event MarketExited(QiToken qiToken, address account);
10
11
/// @notice Emitted when close factor is changed by admin
12
event NewCloseFactor(uint oldCloseFactorMantissa, uint newCloseFactorMantissa);
13
14
/// @notice Emitted when a collateral factor is changed by admin
15
event NewCollateralFactor(QiToken qiToken, uint oldCollateralFactorMantissa, uint newCollateralFactorMantissa);
16
17
/// @notice Emitted when liquidation incentive is changed by admin
18
event NewLiquidationIncentive(uint oldLiquidationIncentiveMantissa, uint newLiquidationIncentiveMantissa);
19
20
/// @notice Emitted when price oracle is changed
21
event NewPriceOracle(PriceOracle oldPriceOracle, PriceOracle newPriceOracle);
22
23
/// @notice Emitted when pause guardian is changed
24
event NewPauseGuardian(address oldPauseGuardian, address newPauseGuardian);
25
26
/// @notice Emitted when an action is paused globally
27
event ActionPaused(string action, bool pauseState);
28
29
/// @notice Emitted when an action is paused on a market
30
event ActionPaused(QiToken qiToken, string action, bool pauseState);
31
32
/// @notice Emitted when a new BENQI or AVAX speed is calculated for a market
33
event SpeedUpdated(uint8 tokenType, QiToken indexed qiToken, uint newSpeed);
34
35
/// @notice Emitted when a new BENQI speed is set for a contributor
36
event ContributorQiSpeedUpdated(address indexed contributor, uint newSpeed);
37
38
/// @notice Emitted when BENQI or AVAX is distributed to a borrower
39
event DistributedBorrowerReward(uint8 indexed tokenType, QiToken indexed qiToken, address indexed borrower, uint qiDelta, uint qiBorrowIndex);
40
41
/// @notice Emitted when BENQI or AVAX is distributed to a supplier
42
event DistributedSupplierReward(uint8 indexed tokenType, QiToken indexed qiToken, address indexed borrower, uint qiDelta, uint qiBorrowIndex);
43
44
/// @notice Emitted when borrow cap for a qiToken is changed
45
event NewBorrowCap(QiToken indexed qiToken, uint newBorrowCap);
46
47
/// @notice Emitted when borrow cap guardian is changed
48
event NewBorrowCapGuardian(address oldBorrowCapGuardian, address newBorrowCapGuardian);
49
50
/// @notice Emitted when BENQI is granted by admin
51
event QiGranted(address recipient, uint amount);
52
53
/// @notice The initial BENQI and AVAX index for a market
54
uint224 public constant initialIndexConstant = 1e36;
55
56
// closeFactorMantissa must be strictly greater than this value
57
uint internal constant closeFactorMinMantissa = 0.05e18; // 0.05
58
59
// closeFactorMantissa must not exceed this value
60
uint internal constant closeFactorMaxMantissa = 0.9e18; // 0.9
61
62
/ No collateralFactorMantissa may exceed this value
63
uint internal constant collateralFactorMaxMantissa = 0.9e18; // 0.9
64
65
/ reward token type to show BENQI or AVAX
66
uint8 public constant rewardQi = 0;
67
uint8 public constant rewardAvax = 1;
68
69
constructor() public {
70
admin = msg.sender;
71
}
72
73
/*** Assets You Are In ***/
74
75
/**
76
* @notice Returns the assets an account has entered
77
* @param account The address of the account to pull assets for
78
* @return A dynamic list with the assets the account has entered
79
*/
80
function getAssetsIn(address account) external view returns (QiToken[] memory) {
81
QiToken[] memory assetsIn = accountAssets[account];
82
83
return assetsIn;
84
}
85
86
/**
87
* @notice Returns whether the given account is entered in the given asset
88
* @param account The address of the account to check
89
* @param qiToken The qiToken to check
90
* @return True if the account is in the asset, otherwise false.
91
*/
92
function checkMembership(address account, QiToken qiToken) external view returns (bool) {
93
return markets[address(qiToken)].accountMembership[account];
94
}
95
96
/**
97
* @notice Add assets to be included in account liquidity calculation
98
* @param qiTokens The list of addresses of the qiToken markets to be enabled
99
* @return Success indicator for whether each corresponding market was entered
100
*/
101
function enterMarkets(address[] memory qiTokens) public returns (uint[] memory) {
102
uint len = qiTokens.length;
103
104
uint[] memory results = new uint[](len);
105
for (uint i = 0; i < len; i++) {
106
QiToken qiToken = QiToken(qiTokens[i]);
107
108
results[i] = uint(addToMarketInternal(qiToken, msg.sender));
109
}
110
111
return results;
112
}
113
114
/**
115
* @notice Add the market to the borrower's "assets in" for liquidity calculations
116
* @param qiToken The market to enter
117
* @param borrower The address of the account to modify
118
* @return Success indicator for whether the market was entered
119
*/
120
function addToMarketInternal(QiToken qiToken, address borrower) internal returns (Error) {
121
Market storage marketToJoin = markets[address(qiToken)];
122
123
if (!marketToJoin.isListed) {
124
// market is not listed, cannot join
125
return Error.MARKET_NOT_LISTED;
126
}
127
128
if (marketToJoin.accountMembership[borrower] == true) {
129
// already joined
130
return Error.NO_ERROR;
131
}
132
133
// survived the gauntlet, add to list
134
// NOTE: we store these somewhat redundantly as a significant optimization
135
// this avoids having to iterate through the list for the most common use cases
136
// that is, only when we need to perform liquidity checks
137
// and not whenever we want to check if an account is in a particular market
138
marketToJoin.accountMembership[borrower] = true;
139
accountAssets[borrower].push(qiToken);
140
141
emit MarketEntered(qiToken, borrower);
142
143
return Error.NO_ERROR;
144
}
145
146
/**
147
* @notice Removes asset from sender's account liquidity calculation
148
* @dev Sender must not have an outstanding borrow balance in the asset,
149
* or be providing necessary collateral for an outstanding borrow.
150
* @param qiTokenAddress The address of the asset to be removed
151
* @return Whether or not the account successfully exited the market
152
*/
153
function exitMarket(address qiTokenAddress) external returns (uint) {
154
QiToken qiToken = QiToken(qiTokenAddress);
155
/* Get sender tokensHeld and amountOwed underlying from the qiToken */
156
(uint oErr, uint tokensHeld, uint amountOwed, ) = qiToken.getAccountSnapshot(msg.sender);
157
require(oErr == 0, "exitMarket: getAccountSnapshot failed"); // semi-opaque error code
158
159
/* Fail if the sender has a borrow balance */
160
if (amountOwed != 0) {
161
return fail(Error.NONZERO_BORROW_BALANCE, FailureInfo.EXIT_MARKET_BALANCE_OWED);
162
}
163
164
/* Fail if the sender is not permitted to redeem all of their tokens */
165
uint allowed = redeemAllowedInternal(qiTokenAddress, msg.sender, tokensHeld);
166
if (allowed != 0) {
167
return failOpaque(Error.REJECTION, FailureInfo.EXIT_MARKET_REJECTION, allowed);
168
}
169
170
Market storage marketToExit = markets[address(qiToken)];
171
172
/* Return true if the sender is not already ‘in’ the market */
173
if (!marketToExit.accountMembership[msg.sender]) {
174
return uint(Error.NO_ERROR);
175
}
176
177
/* Set qiToken account membership to false */
178
delete marketToExit.accountMembership[msg.sender];
179
180
/* Delete qiToken from the account’s list of assets */
181
// load into memory for faster iteration
182
QiToken[] memory userAssetList = accountAssets[msg.sender];
183
uint len = userAssetList.length;
184
uint assetIndex = len;
185
for (uint i = 0; i < len; i++) {
186
if (userAssetList[i] == qiToken) {
187
assetIndex = i;
188
break;
189
}
190
}
191
192
// We *must* have found the asset in the list or our redundant data structure is broken
193
assert(assetIndex < len);
194
195
// copy last item in list to location of item to be removed, reduce length by 1
196
QiToken[] storage storedList = accountAssets[msg.sender];
197
storedList[assetIndex] = storedList[storedList.length - 1];
198
storedList.length--;
199
200
emit MarketExited(qiToken, msg.sender);
201
202
return uint(Error.NO_ERROR);
203
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
19
3457
541
1132
1784
301
Comments to Code 1132/1784 = 63%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tests to Code = N/A
Last modified 5d ago