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

Overview

This is ShapeShift Process Quality Review completed on the 26th of October, 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 90%, 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, Bitcoin, Binance Smart Chain
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%
All of the executing ShapeShift smart contracts are available in their respective GitHub repositories, 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 10+ transactions a day on contract FOX Staking Rewards, 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 2,654 commits and 3 branches, the Fox staking repository is the extensive foxhole network the developer's would like it to be.
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

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

Answer: 100%
All of ShapeShift's main executing contracts and functions are documented at https://raw.githack.com/shapeshift/fox-staking-unified-history/master/docs/index.html#/.
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: 30%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 30% 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%
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: 100%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 200% 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: 91%
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: 70%
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 undertaken.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
FOX Staking has been deployed to Rinkeby.

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%
Multiple audits were performed before the public deployment of multiple of their smart contracts. Notably, the token, and the staker, and airdrop contracts have all been audited pre-launch.
Note: Most of the fix recommendations outlined by the auditing team were implemented by the ShapeShift team.
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: 20%
According to https://shapeshift.com/responsible-disclosure-program, ShapeShift has given approximately 40k in rewards for bug 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%
Immutability of contracts and absence of owner privileges are clearly described at https://github.com/shapeshift/fox-staking-unified-history.
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%
Immutability of contracts and absence of owner privileges are clearly described at https://github.com/shapeshift/fox-staking-unified-history.
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%
Immutability of contracts and absence of owner privileges are clearly described at https://github.com/shapeshift/fox-staking-unified-history.
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

22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 100%
Although no pause control function exists in the ShapeShift code, their smart contracts are entirely immutable, and the protocol functionalities that do not make pause control functions a necessity are described at https://github.com/shapeshift/fox-staking-unified-history/blob/master/README.md
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
pragma solidity ^0.7.6;
2
3
import '../openzeppelin-solidity-3.4.0/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol';
4
import '../openzeppelin-solidity-3.4.0/contracts/access/Ownable.sol';
5
6
import './StakingRewards.sol';
7
8
contract StakingRewardsFactory is Ownable {
9
// immutables
10
address public rewardsToken;
11
uint public stakingRewardsGenesis;
12
13
// the staking tokens for which the rewards contract has been deployed
14
address[] public stakingTokens;
15
16
// info about rewards for a particular staking token
17
struct StakingRewardsInfo {
18
address stakingRewards;
19
uint rewardAmount;
20
}
21
22
// rewards info by staking token
23
mapping(address => StakingRewardsInfo) public stakingRewardsInfoByStakingToken;
24
25
constructor(
26
address _rewardsToken,
27
uint _stakingRewardsGenesis
28
) Ownable() {
29
require(_stakingRewardsGenesis >= block.timestamp, 'StakingRewardsFactory::constructor: genesis too soon');
30
31
rewardsToken = _rewardsToken;
32
stakingRewardsGenesis = _stakingRewardsGenesis;
33
}
34
35
///// permissioned functions
36
37
// deploy a staking reward contract for the staking token, and store the reward amount
38
// the reward will be distributed to the staking reward contract no sooner than the genesis
39
function deploy(address stakingToken, uint rewardAmount) external onlyOwner {
40
StakingRewardsInfo storage info = stakingRewardsInfoByStakingToken[stakingToken];
41
require(info.stakingRewards == address(0), 'StakingRewardsFactory::deploy: already deployed');
42
43
info.stakingRewards = address(new StakingRewards(/*_rewardsDistribution=*/ address(this), rewardsToken, stakingToken));
44
info.rewardAmount = rewardAmount;
45
stakingTokens.push(stakingToken);
46
}
47
48
///// permissionless functions
49
50
// call notifyRewardAmount for all staking tokens.
51
function notifyRewardAmounts() external {
52
require(stakingTokens.length > 0, 'StakingRewardsFactory::notifyRewardAmounts: called before any deploys');
53
for (uint i = 0; i < stakingTokens.length; i++) {
54
notifyRewardAmount(stakingTokens[i]);
55
}
56
}
57
58
// notify reward amount for an individual staking token.
59
// this is a fallback in case the notifyRewardAmounts costs too much gas to call for all contracts
60
function notifyRewardAmount(address stakingToken) public {
61
require(block.timestamp >= stakingRewardsGenesis, 'StakingRewardsFactory::notifyRewardAmount: not ready');
62
63
StakingRewardsInfo storage info = stakingRewardsInfoByStakingToken[stakingToken];
64
require(info.stakingRewards != address(0), 'StakingRewardsFactory::notifyRewardAmount: not deployed');
65
66
if (info.rewardAmount > 0) {
67
uint rewardAmount = info.rewardAmount;
68
info.rewardAmount = 0;
69
70
require(
71
IERC20(rewardsToken).transfer(info.stakingRewards, rewardAmount),
72
'StakingRewardsFactory::notifyRewardAmount: transfer failed'
73
);
74
StakingRewards(info.stakingRewards).notifyRewardAmount(rewardAmount);
75
}
76
}
77
}
78
79
pragma solidity ^0.7.6;
80
81
import "../openzeppelin-solidity-3.4.0/contracts/math/Math.sol";
82
import "../openzeppelin-solidity-3.4.0/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
83
import "../openzeppelin-solidity-3.4.0/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
84
import "../openzeppelin-solidity-3.4.0/contracts/utils/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
85
86
// Inheritance
87
import "./interfaces/IStakingRewards.sol";
88
import "./RewardsDistributionRecipient.sol";
89
90
contract StakingRewards is IStakingRewards, RewardsDistributionRecipient, ReentrancyGuard {
91
using SafeMath for uint256;
92
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
93
94
/* ========= STATE VARIABLES ========= */
95
96
IERC20 public rewardsToken;
97
IERC20 public stakingToken;
98
uint256 public periodFinish = 0;
99
uint256 public rewardRate = 0;
100
uint256 public rewardsDuration = 135 days;
101
uint256 public lastUpdateTime;
102
uint256 public rewardPerTokenStored;
103
104
mapping(address => uint256) public userRewardPerTokenPaid;
105
mapping(address => uint256) public rewards;
106
107
uint256 private _totalSupply;
108
mapping(address => uint256) private _balances;
109
110
/* ========== CONSTRUCTOR ========== */
111
112
constructor(
113
address _rewardsDistribution,
114
address _rewardsToken,
115
address _stakingToken
116
) {
117
rewardsToken = IERC20(_rewardsToken);
118
stakingToken = IERC20(_stakingToken);
119
rewardsDistribution = _rewardsDistribution;
120
}
121
122
/* ========== VIEWS ========== */
123
124
function totalSupply() external view override returns (uint256) {
125
return _totalSupply;
126
}
127
128
function balanceOf(address account) external view override returns (uint256) {
129
return _balances[account];
130
}
131
132
function lastTimeRewardApplicable() public view override returns (uint256) {
133
return Math.min(block.timestamp, periodFinish);
134
}
135
136
function rewardPerToken() public view override returns (uint256) {
137
if (_totalSupply == 0) {
138
return rewardPerTokenStored;
139
}
140
return
141
rewardPerTokenStored.add(
142
lastTimeRewardApplicable().sub(lastUpdateTime).mul(rewardRate).mul(1e18).div(_totalSupply)
143
);
144
}
145
146
function earned(address account) public view override returns (uint256) {
147
return _balances[account].mul(rewardPerToken().sub(userRewardPerTokenPaid[account])).div(1e18).add(rewards[account]);
148
}
149
150
function getRewardForDuration() external view override returns (uint256) {
151
return rewardRate.mul(rewardsDuration);
152
}
153
154
/* ========== MUTATIVE FUNCTIONS ========== */
155
156
function stakeWithPermit(uint256 amount, uint deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
157
require(amount > 0, "Cannot stake 0");
158
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.add(amount);
159
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].add(amount);
160
161
// permit
162
IUniswapV2ERC20(address(stakingToken)).permit(msg.sender, address(this), amount, deadline, v, r, s);
163
164
stakingToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
165
emit Staked(msg.sender, amount);
166
}
167
168
function stake(uint256 amount) external override nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
169
require(amount > 0, "Cannot stake 0");
170
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.add(amount);
171
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].add(amount);
172
stakingToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
173
emit Staked(msg.sender, amount);
174
}
175
176
function withdraw(uint256 amount) public override nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
177
require(amount > 0, "Cannot withdraw 0");
178
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.sub(amount);
179
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].sub(amount);
180
stakingToken.safeTransfer(msg.sender, amount);
181
emit Withdrawn(msg.sender, amount);
182
}
183
184
function getReward() public override nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
185
uint256 reward = rewards[msg.sender];
186
if (reward > 0) {
187
rewards[msg.sender] = 0;
188
rewardsToken.safeTransfer(msg.sender, reward);
189
emit RewardPaid(msg.sender, reward);
190
}
191
}
192
193
function exit() external override {
194
withdraw(_balances[msg.sender]);
195
getReward();
196
}
197
198
/* ========== RESTRICTED FUNCTIONS ========== */
199
200
function notifyRewardAmount(uint256 reward) external override onlyRewardsDistribution updateReward(address(0)) {
201
if (block.timestamp >= periodFinish) {
202
rewardRate = reward.div(rewardsDuration);
203
} else {
204
uint256 remaining = periodFinish.sub(block.timestamp);
205
uint256 leftover = remaining.mul(rewardRate);
206
rewardRate = reward.add(leftover).div(rewardsDuration);
207
}
208
209
// Ensure the provided reward amount is not more than the balance in the contract.
210
// This keeps the reward rate in the right range, preventing overflows due to
211
// very high values of rewardRate in the earned and rewardsPerToken functions;
212
// Reward + leftover must be less than 2^256 / 10^18 to avoid overflow.
213
uint balance = rewardsToken.balanceOf(address(this));
214
require(rewardRate <= balance.div(rewardsDuration), "Provided reward too high");
215
216
lastUpdateTime = block.timestamp;
217
periodFinish = block.timestamp.add(rewardsDuration);
218
emit RewardAdded(reward);
219
}
220
221
/* ========== MODIFIERS ========== */
222
223
modifier updateReward(address account) {
224
rewardPerTokenStored = rewardPerToken();
225
lastUpdateTime = lastTimeRewardApplicable();
226
if (account != address(0)) {
227
rewards[account] = earned(account);
228
userRewardPerTokenPaid[account] = rewardPerTokenStored;
229
}
230
_;
231
}
232
233
/* ========== EVENTS ========== */
234
235
event RewardAdded(uint256 reward);
236
event Staked(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
237
event Withdrawn(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
238
event RewardPaid(address indexed user, uint256 reward);
239
}
240
241
interface IUniswapV2ERC20 {
242
function permit(address owner, address spender, uint value, uint deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external;
243
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Comments to Code 56/190 = 30%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
4
479
77
21
381
10
Tests to Code 380/190 = 200%
Last modified 5d ago