P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Ribbon Finance Process Quality Review

Overview

This is a Ribbon Finance Process Quality Review completed on the 10th of January, 2022. 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 77%, a 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 blockchains used by this protocol. This report covers all of the blockchains upon which the protocol is deployed.
Chain: Ethereum, 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%
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: 70%
Activity is 10 transactions a week on contract RibbonThetaEthCall, 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 an astonishing 165 branches with 143 commits, Ribbon's development is clearly well wrapped and won't be getting cut short any time.
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
Some software functions are documented

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

Answer: 100%
The major contract functions at https://docs.ribbon.finance/developers/ribbon-v25are covered.
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: 48%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 48% 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: 60%
There is no traceability, but there is association.
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 codeno reportw was found.

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 777% 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: 50%
Evidence of code coverage was not found, but there is clear evidence of testing given the high TtC.
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

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
No 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%
Ribbon uses Kovan: https://github.com/ribbon-finance/ribbon-frontend#setting-up-your-environment

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%
Ribbon V2 was audited before and after launch by OpenZeppelin and ChainSafe.
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: 50%
Ribbon offers $50K with Immunefi.
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: 80%
Information is easily located, but this requires knowledge of what role ownership means.
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%
No contracts are labelled as upgradeable/ immutable. 0%
Ownership is clearly detailed here.. This could be clearer about which specific contracts are owned by these System Roles, nonetheless. 30%
Some capabilities are described in a relatively specific way. 20%
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: 30%
This information is in software specific language.
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 found.
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
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
2
pragma solidity =0.8.4;
3
4
import {SafeMath} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/math/SafeMath.sol";
5
import {IERC20} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
6
import {
7
SafeERC20
8
} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol";
9
import {GnosisAuction} from "../../libraries/GnosisAuction.sol";
10
import {Vault} from "../../libraries/Vault.sol";
11
import {VaultLifecycle} from "../../libraries/VaultLifecycle.sol";
12
import {VaultLifecycleSTETH} from "../../libraries/VaultLifecycleSTETH.sol";
13
import {ShareMath} from "../../libraries/ShareMath.sol";
14
import {RibbonVault} from "./base/RibbonVault.sol";
15
import {
16
RibbonThetaSTETHVaultStorage
17
} from "../../storage/RibbonThetaSTETHVaultStorage.sol";
18
19
/**
20
* UPGRADEABILITY: Since we use the upgradeable proxy pattern, we must observe
21
* the inheritance chain closely.
22
* Any changes/appends in storage variable needs to happen in RibbonThetaSTETHVaultStorage.
23
* RibbonThetaSTETHVault should not inherit from any other contract aside from RibbonVault, RibbonThetaSTETHVaultStorage
24
*/
25
contract RibbonThetaSTETHVault is RibbonVault, RibbonThetaSTETHVaultStorage {
26
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
27
using SafeMath for uint256;
28
using ShareMath for Vault.DepositReceipt;
29
30
/************************************************
31
* IMMUTABLES & CONSTANTS
32
***********************************************/
33
34
/// @notice is the factory contract used to spawn otokens. Used to lookup otokens.
35
address public immutable OTOKEN_FACTORY;
36
37
// The minimum duration for an option auction.
38
uint256 private constant MIN_AUCTION_DURATION = 5 minutes;
39
40
/************************************************
41
* EVENTS
42
***********************************************/
43
44
event OpenShort(
45
address indexed options,
46
uint256 depositAmount,
47
address indexed manager
48
);
49
50
event CloseShort(
51
address indexed options,
52
uint256 withdrawAmount,
53
address indexed manager
54
);
55
56
event NewOptionStrikeSelected(uint256 strikePrice, uint256 delta);
57
58
event PremiumDiscountSet(
59
uint256 premiumDiscount,
60
uint256 newPremiumDiscount
61
);
62
63
event AuctionDurationSet(
64
uint256 auctionDuration,
65
uint256 newAuctionDuration
66
);
67
68
event InstantWithdraw(
69
address indexed account,
70
uint256 amount,
71
uint256 round
72
);
73
74
event InitiateGnosisAuction(
75
address indexed auctioningToken,
76
address indexed biddingToken,
77
uint256 auctionCounter,
78
address indexed manager
79
);
80
81
/************************************************
82
* CONSTRUCTOR & INITIALIZATION
83
***********************************************/
84
85
/**
86
* @notice Initializes the contract with immutable variables
87
* @param _weth is the Wrapped Ether contract
88
* @param _usdc is the USDC contract
89
* @param _wsteth is the LDO contract
90
* @param _ldo is the LDO contract
91
* @param _oTokenFactory is the contract address for minting new opyn option types (strikes, asset, expiry)
92
* @param _gammaController is the contract address for opyn actions
93
* @param _marginPool is the contract address for providing collateral to opyn
94
* @param _gnosisEasyAuction is the contract address that facilitates gnosis auctions
95
* @param _crvPool is the steth/eth crv stables pool
96
*/
97
constructor(
98
address _weth,
99
address _usdc,
100
address _wsteth,
101
address _ldo,
102
address _oTokenFactory,
103
address _gammaController,
104
address _marginPool,
105
address _gnosisEasyAuction,
106
address _crvPool
107
)
108
RibbonVault(
109
_weth,
110
_usdc,
111
_wsteth,
112
_ldo,
113
_gammaController,
114
_marginPool,
115
_gnosisEasyAuction,
116
_crvPool
117
)
118
{
119
require(_oTokenFactory != address(0), "!_oTokenFactory");
120
OTOKEN_FACTORY = _oTokenFactory;
121
}
122
123
/**
124
* @notice Initializes the OptionVault contract with storage variables.
125
* @param _owner is the owner of the vault with critical permissions
126
* @param _keeper is the keeper of the vault with medium permissions (weekly actions)
127
* @param _feeRecipient is the address to recieve vault performance and management fees
128
* @param _managementFee is the management fee pct.
129
* @param _performanceFee is the perfomance fee pct.
130
* @param _tokenName is the name of the token
131
* @param _tokenSymbol is the symbol of the token
132
* @param _optionsPremiumPricer is the address of the contract with the
133
black-scholes premium calculation logic
134
* @param _strikeSelection is the address of the contract with strike selection logic
135
* @param _premiumDiscount is the vault's discount applied to the premium
136
* @param _auctionDuration is the duration of the gnosis auction
137
* @param _vaultParams is the struct with vault general data
138
*/
139
function initialize(
140
address _owner,
141
address _keeper,
142
address _feeRecipient,
143
uint256 _managementFee,
144
uint256 _performanceFee,
145
string memory _tokenName,
146
string memory _tokenSymbol,
147
address _optionsPremiumPricer,
148
address _strikeSelection,
149
uint32 _premiumDiscount,
150
uint256 _auctionDuration,
151
Vault.VaultParams calldata _vaultParams
152
) external initializer {
153
baseInitialize(
154
_owner,
155
_keeper,
156
_feeRecipient,
157
_managementFee,
158
_performanceFee,
159
_tokenName,
160
_tokenSymbol,
161
_vaultParams
162
);
163
require(_optionsPremiumPricer != address(0), "!_optionsPremiumPricer");
164
require(_strikeSelection != address(0), "!_strikeSelection");
165
require(
166
_premiumDiscount > 0 &&
167
_premiumDiscount < 100 * Vault.PREMIUM_DISCOUNT_MULTIPLIER,
168
"!_premiumDiscount"
169
);
170
require(_auctionDuration >= MIN_AUCTION_DURATION, "!_auctionDuration");
171
optionsPremiumPricer = _optionsPremiumPricer;
172
strikeSelection = _strikeSelection;
173
premiumDiscount = _premiumDiscount;
174
auctionDuration = _auctionDuration;
175
}
176
177
/************************************************
178
* SETTERS
179
***********************************************/
180
181
/**
182
* @notice Sets the new discount on premiums for options we are selling
183
* @param newPremiumDiscount is the premium discount
184
*/
185
function setPremiumDiscount(uint256 newPremiumDiscount) external onlyOwner {
186
require(
187
newPremiumDiscount > 0 &&
188
newPremiumDiscount < 100 * Vault.PREMIUM_DISCOUNT_MULTIPLIER,
189
"Invalid discount"
190
);
191
192
emit PremiumDiscountSet(premiumDiscount, newPremiumDiscount);
193
premiumDiscount = newPremiumDiscount;
194
}
195
196
/**
197
* @notice Sets the new auction duration
198
* @param newAuctionDuration is the auction duration
199
*/
200
function setAuctionDuration(uint256 newAuctionDuration) external onlyOwner {
201
require(
202
newAuctionDuration >= MIN_AUCTION_DURATION,
203
"Invalid auction duration"
204
);
205
emit AuctionDurationSet(auctionDuration, newAuctionDuration);
206
auctionDuration = newAuctionDuration;
207
}
208
209
/**
210
* @notice Sets the new strike selection or options premium pricer contract
211
* @param newContract is the address of the new strike selection or options premium pricer contract
212
* @param isStrikeSelection is whether we are setting the strike selection contract
213
*/
214
function setStrikeSelectionOrPricer(
215
address newContract,
216
bool isStrikeSelection
217
) external onlyOwner {
218
require(newContract != address(0), "!newContract");
219
if (isStrikeSelection) {
220
strikeSelection = newContract;
221
} else {
222
optionsPremiumPricer = newContract;
223
}
224
}
225
226
/**
227
* @notice Optionality to set strike price manually
228
* @param strikePrice is the strike price of the new oTokens (decimals = 8)
229
*/
230
function setStrikePrice(uint128 strikePrice)
231
external
232
onlyOwner
233
nonReentrant
234
{
235
require(strikePrice > 0, "!strikePrice");
236
overriddenStrikePrice = strikePrice;
237
lastStrikeOverrideRound = vaultState.round;
238
}
239
240
/************************************************
241
* VAULT OPERATIONS
242
***********************************************/
243
244
/**
245
* @notice Withdraws the assets on the vault using the outstanding `DepositReceipt.amount`
246
* @param amount is the amount to withdraw in `asset`
247
* @param minETHOut is the min amount of `asset` to recieve for the swapped amount of steth in crv pool
248
*/
249
function withdrawInstantly(uint256 amount, uint256 minETHOut)
250
external
251
nonReentrant
252
{
253
Vault.DepositReceipt storage depositReceipt =
254
depositReceipts[msg.sender];
255
256
uint256 currentRound = vaultState.round;
257
258
require(amount > 0, "!amount");
259
require(depositReceipt.round == currentRound, "Invalid round");
260
261
uint256 receiptAmount = depositReceipt.amount;
262
require(receiptAmount >= amount, "Exceed amount");
263
264
// Subtraction underflow checks already ensure it is smaller than uint104
265
depositReceipt.amount = uint104(receiptAmount.sub(amount));
266
vaultState.totalPending = uint128(
267
uint256(vaultState.totalPending).sub(amount)
268
);
269
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
6
122
2843
775
1607
106
Comments to Code 775/1607 = 484%

Typescript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
13
15616
2616
509
12491
531
Tests to Code = %
Last modified 10d ago