P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Tracer Finance Process Quality Review
Score: 85%

Overview

This is a Tracer Finance Process Quality Review completed on 14/10/2021. 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 85%, 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: Arbitrum
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: 100%
Activity is in excess of 10 transactions a day on contract PoolKeeper, 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 820 commits and 10 branches, this protocol's development history sets itself up for a joke so straightforward and obvious that I won't even indulge you in reading it.
This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).
Guidance: 100% Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches 70% Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches 50% Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches 30% Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches 0% Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N) 7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N) 8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%) 9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%) 10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
The basic software functions are identified in the Tracer GitHub documentation.

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

Answer: 100%
All of the contracts' functions are covered in their software documentation's GitHub repository.
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: 100%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 154% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Note: Tracer Finance does all of their Perpetual Pools smart contract code commenting in their equivalent Interface files. In addition, any of their governance smart contract code commenting is done in the actual contract code.
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

10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 60%
Detailed code explanations enable clear association, though this link is implied and without explicit 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: 100%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 338% 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: 100%
Tracer Finance has had code coverage done by SigmaPrime, and the details can be found near the bottom of their Tracer audit report.
Guidance: 100% Documented full coverage 99-51% Value of test coverage from documented results 50% No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests 30% Some tests evident but not complete 0% No test for coverage seen

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

Answer: Yes

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no test report.
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%
Tracer finance has not undergone formal verification testing.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
This protocol is deployed in full to the Arbitrum 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: 90%
Tracer underwent an audit before deployment, and all suggestions were acted upon.
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: 100%
Tracer's bug bounty is an active program with a highest payout of $1M. This is very impressive given the relative youth of this protocol.
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%
Governance controls the protocol.
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: 90%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% -- the Factory contract/ market templates are labelled as upgradeable. b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- the DAO is in full control c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30% -- they are changed via a vote and have total control over the contract.
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: 30%
This information is in clear, complete and non-software language. However, none of it relates to users' investments' safety.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable 90% Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software 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: 40%
Pause controls are mentioned on page 24 in the audit, but there is no mention of them in the documentation.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 100% Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months 80% Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests 40% Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests 0% Pause control not documented or explained

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.
Email : [email protected] Twitter : @defisafety
I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education. It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process. Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.
I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development.
Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.
DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

1
2
import "../interfaces/IPoolKeeper.sol";
3
import "../interfaces/IOracleWrapper.sol";
4
import "../interfaces/IPoolFactory.sol";
5
import "../interfaces/ILeveragedPool.sol";
6
import "../interfaces/IERC20DecimalsWrapper.sol";
7
import "../interfaces/IERC20DecimalsWrapper.sol";
8
import "./PoolSwapLibrary.sol";
9
10
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/access/Ownable.sol";
11
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/proxy/Clones.sol";
12
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
13
import "abdk-libraries-solidity/ABDKMathQuad.sol";
14
import "@chainlink/contracts/src/v0.8/interfaces/AggregatorV2V3Interface.sol";
15
16
/// @title The manager contract for multiple markets and the pools in them
17
contract PoolKeeper is IPoolKeeper, Ownable {
18
/* Constants */
19
uint256 public constant BASE_TIP = 5; // 5% base tip
20
uint256 public constant TIP_DELTA_PER_BLOCK = 5; // 5% increase per block
21
uint256 public constant BLOCK_TIME = 13; /* in seconds */
22
uint256 public constant MAX_DECIMALS = 18;
23
24
// #### Global variables
25
/**
26
* @notice Format: Pool address => last executionPrice
27
*/
28
mapping(address => int256) public executionPrice;
29
30
IPoolFactory public factory;
31
bytes16 constant fixedPoint = 0x403abc16d674ec800000000000000000; // 1 ether
32
33
uint256 public gasPrice = 10 gwei;
34
35
// #### Functions
36
constructor(address _factory) {
37
require(_factory != address(0), "Factory cannot be 0 address");
38
factory = IPoolFactory(_factory);
39
}
40
41
/*
42
* @notice When a pool is created, this function is called by the factory to initiate price trackings
43
* @param _poolAddress The address of the newly-created pools
44
*/
45
function newPool(address _poolAddress) external override onlyFactory {
46
address oracleWrapper = ILeveragedPool(_poolAddress).oracleWrapper();
47
int256 firstPrice = IOracleWrapper(oracleWrapper).getPrice();
48
require(firstPrice > 0, "First price is non-positive");
49
int256 startingPrice = ABDKMathQuad.toInt(ABDKMathQuad.mul(ABDKMathQuad.fromInt(firstPrice), fixedPoint));
50
emit PoolAdded(_poolAddress, firstPrice);
51
executionPrice[_poolAddress] = startingPrice;
52
}
53
54
// Keeper network
55
/*
56
* @notice Check if upkeep is required
57
* @param _pool The address of the pool to upkeep
58
* @return upkeepNeeded Whether or not upkeep is needed for this single pool
59
*/
60
function checkUpkeepSinglePool(address _pool) public view override returns (bool) {
61
if (!factory.isValidPool(_pool)) {
62
return false;
63
}
64
65
// The update interval has passed
66
return ILeveragedPool(_pool).intervalPassed();
67
}
68
69
/**
70
* @notice Checks multiple pools if any of them need updating
71
* @param _pools The array of pools to check
72
* @return upkeepNeeded Whether or not at least one pool needs upkeeping
73
*/
74
function checkUpkeepMultiplePools(address[] calldata _pools) external view override returns (bool) {
75
for (uint256 i = 0; i < _pools.length; i++) {
76
if (checkUpkeepSinglePool(_pools[i])) {
77
// One has been found that requires upkeeping
78
return true;
79
}
80
}
81
return false;
82
}
83
84
/**
85
* @notice Called by keepers to perform an update on a single pool
86
* @param _pool The pool code to perform the update for
87
*/
88
function performUpkeepSinglePool(address _pool) public override {
89
uint256 startGas = gasleft();
90
91
// validate the pool, check that the interval time has passed
92
if (!checkUpkeepSinglePool(_pool)) {
93
return;
94
}
95
ILeveragedPool pool = ILeveragedPool(_pool);
96
(int256 latestPrice, bytes memory data, uint256 savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp, uint256 updateInterval) = pool
97
.getUpkeepInformation();
98
99
// Start a new round
100
// Get price in WAD format
101
int256 lastExecutionPrice = executionPrice[_pool];
102
executionPrice[_pool] = latestPrice;
103
104
// This allows us to still batch multiple calls to executePriceChange, even if some are invalid
105
// Without reverting the entire transaction
106
try pool.poolUpkeep(lastExecutionPrice, latestPrice) {
107
// If poolUpkeep is successful, refund the keeper for their gas costs
108
uint256 gasSpent = startGas - gasleft();
109
110
payKeeper(_pool, gasPrice, gasSpent, savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp, updateInterval);
111
emit UpkeepSuccessful(_pool, data, lastExecutionPrice, latestPrice);
112
} catch Error(string memory reason) {
113
// If poolUpkeep fails for any other reason, emit event
114
emit PoolUpkeepError(_pool, reason);
115
}
116
}
117
118
/**
119
* @notice Called by keepers to perform an update on multiple pools
120
* @param pools pool codes to perform the update for
121
*/
122
function performUpkeepMultiplePools(address[] calldata pools) external override {
123
for (uint256 i = 0; i < pools.length; i++) {
124
performUpkeepSinglePool(pools[i]);
125
}
126
}
127
128
/**
129
* @notice Pay keeper for upkeep
130
* @param _pool Address of the given pool
131
* @param _gasPrice Price of a single gas unit (in ETH)
132
* @param _gasSpent Number of gas units spent
133
* @param _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp Last timestamp when the pool's price execution happened
134
* @param _updateInterval Pool interval of the given pool
135
*/
136
function payKeeper(
137
address _pool,
138
uint256 _gasPrice,
139
uint256 _gasSpent,
140
uint256 _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp,
141
uint256 _updateInterval
142
) internal {
143
uint256 reward = keeperReward(_pool, _gasPrice, _gasSpent, _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp, _updateInterval);
144
if (ILeveragedPool(_pool).payKeeperFromBalances(msg.sender, reward)) {
145
emit KeeperPaid(_pool, msg.sender, reward);
146
} else {
147
// Usually occurs if pool just started and does not have any funds
148
emit KeeperPaymentError(_pool, msg.sender, reward);
149
}
150
}
151
152
/**
153
* @notice Payment keeper receives for performing upkeep on a given pool
154
* @param _pool Address of the given pool
155
* @param _gasPrice Price of a single gas unit (in ETH)
156
* @param _gasSpent Number of gas units spent
157
* @param _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp Last timestamp when the pool's price execution happened
158
* @param _poolInterval Pool interval of the given pool
159
* @return Number of settlement tokens to give to the keeper for work performed
160
*/
161
function keeperReward(
162
address _pool,
163
uint256 _gasPrice,
164
uint256 _gasSpent,
165
uint256 _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp,
166
uint256 _poolInterval
167
) public view returns (uint256) {
168
// keeper gas cost in wei. WAD formatted
169
uint256 _keeperGas = keeperGas(_pool, _gasPrice, _gasSpent);
170
171
// tip percent in wad units
172
bytes16 _tipPercent = ABDKMathQuad.fromUInt(keeperTip(_savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp, _poolInterval));
173
174
// amount of settlement tokens to give to the keeper
175
_tipPercent = ABDKMathQuad.div(_tipPercent, ABDKMathQuad.fromUInt(100));
176
int256 wadRewardValue = ABDKMathQuad.toInt(
177
ABDKMathQuad.add(
178
ABDKMathQuad.fromUInt(_keeperGas),
179
ABDKMathQuad.div((ABDKMathQuad.mul(ABDKMathQuad.fromUInt(_keeperGas), _tipPercent)), fixedPoint)
180
)
181
);
182
uint256 decimals = IERC20DecimalsWrapper(ILeveragedPool(_pool).quoteToken()).decimals();
183
uint256 deWadifiedReward = PoolSwapLibrary.fromWad(uint256(wadRewardValue), decimals);
184
// _keeperGas + _keeperGas * percentTip
185
return deWadifiedReward;
186
}
187
188
/**
189
* @notice Compensation a keeper will receive for their gas expenditure
190
* @param _pool Address of the given pool
191
* @param _gasPrice Price of a single gas unit (in ETH)
192
* @param _gasSpent Number of gas units spent
193
* @return Keeper's gas compensation
194
*/
195
function keeperGas(
196
address _pool,
197
uint256 _gasPrice,
198
uint256 _gasSpent
199
) public view returns (uint256) {
200
int256 settlementTokenPrice = IOracleWrapper(ILeveragedPool(_pool).settlementEthOracle()).getPrice();
201
202
if (settlementTokenPrice <= 0) {
203
return 0;
204
} else {
205
/* safe due to explicit bounds check above */
206
/* (wei * Settlement / ETH) / fixed point (10^18) = amount in settlement */
207
bytes16 _weiSpent = ABDKMathQuad.fromUInt(_gasPrice * _gasSpent);
208
bytes16 _settlementTokenPrice = ABDKMathQuad.fromUInt(uint256(settlementTokenPrice));
209
return
210
ABDKMathQuad.toUInt(ABDKMathQuad.div(ABDKMathQuad.mul(_weiSpent, _settlementTokenPrice), fixedPoint));
211
}
212
}
213
214
/**
215
* @notice Tip a keeper will receive for successfully updating the specified pool
216
* @param _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp Last timestamp when the pool's price execution happened
217
* @param _poolInterval Pool interval of the given pool
218
* @return Percent of the `keeperGas` cost to add to payment, as a percent
219
*/
220
function keeperTip(uint256 _savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp, uint256 _poolInterval) public view returns (uint256) {
221
/* the number of blocks that have elapsed since the given pool's updateInterval passed */
222
uint256 elapsedBlocksNumerator = (block.timestamp - (_savedPreviousUpdatedTimestamp + _poolInterval));
223
224
uint256 keeperTip = BASE_TIP + (TIP_DELTA_PER_BLOCK * elapsedBlocksNumerator) / BLOCK_TIME;
225
226
// In case of network outages or otherwise, we want to cap the tip so that the keeper cost isn't unbounded
227
if (keeperTip > 100) {
228
return 100;
229
} else {
230
return keeperTip;
231
}
232
}
233
234
function setFactory(address _factory) external override onlyOwner {
235
factory = IPoolFactory(_factory);
236
}
237
238
/**
239
* @notice Sets the gas price to be used in compensating keepers for successful upkeep
240
* @param _price Price (in ETH) per unit gas
241
* @dev Only owner
242
*/
243
function setGasPrice(uint256 _price) external onlyOwner {
244
gasPrice = _price;
245
}
246
247
modifier onlyFactory() {
248
require(msg.sender == address(factory), "Caller not factory");
249
_;
250
}
251
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
16
2568
195
1438
935
45
Comments to Code 1438/935 = 154%

TypeScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
25
3811
282
368
3161
19
Tests to Code 3161/935 = 338%
Last modified 5d ago