P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
TrueFi V4 Process Quality Review
Score: 57%

Overview

This is a TrueFi V4 Process Quality Review completed on November 2nd 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by David Desjardins of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 57%, a FAIL. The breakdown of the scoring is in the Scoring Appendix. For our purposes, a pass is 70%. TrueFi must properly link their repository to their main page, and provide better software function documentation in their Gitbooks.

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
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://github.com/trusttoken/smart-contracts#readme, 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 over 10 internal transactions a day on contract Registry.sol, 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
GitHub link is available in TrueFi's Litepaper.
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%
TrustToken's smart contracts have 15 branches and 1427 commits.
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
The team can be found in TrueFi's GitHub page.
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
Yes, most major functions have documentation in the repository's "docs" subfolder.

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

Answer: 100%
All function documentation is found in TrueFi'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

9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 66%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 66% 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%
TrueFi's GitHub repository gives a lear association between the code and documents via non 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 225% 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: 82%
As per TrueFi's GitHub repository, their smart contracts have a coverage of 82%.
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 evidence of formal verification.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
There is evidence of a stress testing environment at https://github.com/trusttoken/smart-contracts/blob/main/deployments-ropsten.json.

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: 0%
TrueFi has had multiple audits, found here. However, the latest version of TrueFi, 4.0, has never been audited.
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: 70%
An active Bug bounty program can be found at https://github.com/trusttoken/bug-bounty.
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%
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: 30%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 0% -- No contracts' upgrade status is explicitly mentioned.
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- OnlyOwners and defined voting roles are clearly defined in the code and documentation at https://github.com/trusttoken/smart-contracts/blob/main/docs/governance/common/ClaimableContract.md.
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 0% -- No capability for change is described for any of the smart contracts.
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%
Admin control information is only available 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: 40%
There is no documentation to be found on pause control. However, it can be found in their GitHub repository without proper documentation at https://github.com/trusttoken/smart-contracts/blob/main/docs/governance/Pauser.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. Properly link the TrueFi repository to its webpage.

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 0.6.10;
3
4
import {IERC20} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
5
import {SafeMath} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
6
7
import {Initializable} from "../common/Initializable.sol";
8
import {ITrueDistributor} from "./interface/ITrueDistributor.sol";
9
import {ITrueFarm} from "./interface/ITrueFarm.sol";
10
11
/**
12
* @title TrueFarm
13
* @notice Deposit liquidity tokens to earn TRU rewards over time
14
* @dev Staking pool where tokens are staked for TRU rewards
15
* A Distributor contract decides how much TRU a farm can earn over time
16
*/
17
contract TrueFarm is ITrueFarm, Initializable {
18
using SafeMath for uint256;
19
uint256 constant PRECISION = 1e30;
20
21
// ================ WARNING ==================
22
// ===== THIS CONTRACT IS INITIALIZABLE ======
23
// === STORAGE VARIABLES ARE DECLARED BELOW ==
24
/ REMOVAL OR REORDER OF VARIABLES WILL RESULT
25
/ ========= IN STORAGE CORRUPTION ===========
26
27
IERC20 public override stakingToken;
28
IERC20 public override trustToken;
29
ITrueDistributor public override trueDistributor;
30
string public override name;
31
32
// track stakes
33
uint256 public override totalStaked;
34
mapping(address => uint256) public staked;
35
36
// track overall cumulative rewards
37
uint256 public cumulativeRewardPerToken;
38
// track previous cumulate rewards for accounts
39
mapping(address => uint256) public previousCumulatedRewardPerToken;
40
// track claimable rewards for accounts
41
mapping(address => uint256) public claimableReward;
42
43
// track total rewards
44
uint256 public totalClaimedRewards;
45
uint256 public totalFarmRewards;
46
47
// ======= STORAGE DECLARATION END ============
48
49
/**
50
* @dev Emitted when an account stakes
51
* @param who Account staking
52
* @param amountStaked Amount of tokens staked
53
*/
54
event Stake(address indexed who, uint256 amountStaked);
55
56
/**
57
* @dev Emitted when an account unstakes
58
* @param who Account unstaking
59
* @param amountUnstaked Amount of tokens unstaked
60
*/
61
event Unstake(address indexed who, uint256 amountUnstaked);
62
63
/**
64
* @dev Emitted when an account claims TRU rewards
65
* @param who Account claiming
66
* @param amountClaimed Amount of TRU claimed
67
*/
68
event Claim(address indexed who, uint256 amountClaimed);
69
70
/**
71
* @dev Initialize staking pool with a Distributor contract
72
* The distributor contract calculates how much TRU rewards this contract
73
* gets, and stores TRU for distribution.
74
* @param _stakingToken Token to stake
75
* @param _trueDistributor Distributor contract
76
* @param _name Farm name
77
*/
78
function initialize(
79
IERC20 _stakingToken,
80
ITrueDistributor _trueDistributor,
81
string memory _name
82
) public initializer {
83
stakingToken = _stakingToken;
84
trueDistributor = _trueDistributor;
85
trustToken = _trueDistributor.trustToken();
86
name = _name;
87
require(trueDistributor.farm() == address(this), "TrueFarm: Distributor farm is not set");
88
}
89
90
/**
91
* @dev Stake tokens for TRU rewards.
92
* Also claims any existing rewards.
93
* @param amount Amount of tokens to stake
94
*/
95
function stake(uint256 amount) external override update {
96
if (claimableReward[msg.sender] > 0) {
97
_claim();
98
}
99
staked[msg.sender] = staked[msg.sender].add(amount);
100
totalStaked = totalStaked.add(amount);
101
require(stakingToken.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount));
102
emit Stake(msg.sender, amount);
103
}
104
105
/**
106
* @dev Internal unstake function
107
* @param amount Amount of tokens to unstake
108
*/
109
function _unstake(uint256 amount) internal {
110
require(amount <= staked[msg.sender], "TrueFarm: Cannot withdraw amount bigger than available balance");
111
staked[msg.sender] = staked[msg.sender].sub(amount);
112
totalStaked = totalStaked.sub(amount);
113
require(stakingToken.transfer(msg.sender, amount));
114
emit Unstake(msg.sender, amount);
115
}
116
117
/**
118
* @dev Internal claim function
119
*/
120
function _claim() internal {
121
totalClaimedRewards = totalClaimedRewards.add(claimableReward[msg.sender]);
122
uint256 rewardToClaim = claimableReward[msg.sender];
123
claimableReward[msg.sender] = 0;
124
require(trustToken.transfer(msg.sender, rewardToClaim));
125
emit Claim(msg.sender, rewardToClaim);
126
}
127
128
/**
129
* @dev Remove staked tokens
130
* @param amount Amount of tokens to unstake
131
*/
132
function unstake(uint256 amount) external override update {
133
_unstake(amount);
134
}
135
136
/**
137
* @dev Claim TRU rewards
138
*/
139
function claim() external override update {
140
_claim();
141
}
142
143
/**
144
* @dev Unstake amount and claim rewards
145
* @param amount Amount of tokens to unstake
146
*/
147
function exit(uint256 amount) external override update {
148
_unstake(amount);
149
_claim();
150
}
151
152
/**
153
* @dev View to estimate the claimable reward for an account
154
* @return claimable rewards for account
155
*/
156
function claimable(address account) external view returns (uint256) {
157
if (staked[account] == 0) {
158
return claimableReward[account];
159
}
160
// estimate pending reward from distributor
161
uint256 pending = trueDistributor.nextDistribution();
162
// calculate total rewards (including pending)
163
uint256 newTotalFarmRewards = trustToken.balanceOf(address(this)).add(pending).add(totalClaimedRewards).mul(PRECISION);
164
// calculate block reward
165
uint256 totalBlockReward = newTotalFarmRewards.sub(totalFarmRewards);
166
// calculate next cumulative reward per token
167
uint256 nextcumulativeRewardPerToken = cumulativeRewardPerToken.add(totalBlockReward.div(totalStaked));
168
// return claimable reward for this account
169
// prettier-ignore
170
return claimableReward[account].add(
171
staked[account].mul(nextcumulativeRewardPerToken.sub(previousCumulatedRewardPerToken[account])).div(PRECISION));
172
}
173
174
/**
175
* @dev Update state and get TRU from distributor
176
*/
177
modifier update() {
178
// pull TRU from distributor
179
// only pull if there is distribution and distributor farm is set to this farm
180
if (trueDistributor.nextDistribution() > 0 && trueDistributor.farm() == address(this)) {
181
trueDistributor.distribute();
182
}
183
// calculate total rewards
184
uint256 newTotalFarmRewards = trustToken.balanceOf(address(this)).add(totalClaimedRewards).mul(PRECISION);
185
// calculate block reward
186
uint256 totalBlockReward = newTotalFarmRewards.sub(totalFarmRewards);
187
// update farm rewards
188
totalFarmRewards = newTotalFarmRewards;
189
// if there are stakers
190
if (totalStaked > 0) {
191
cumulativeRewardPerToken = cumulativeRewardPerToken.add(totalBlockReward.div(totalStaked));
192
}
193
// update claimable reward for sender
194
claimableReward[msg.sender] = claimableReward[msg.sender].add(
195
staked[msg.sender].mul(cumulativeRewardPerToken.sub(previousCumulatedRewardPerToken[msg.sender])).div(PRECISION)
196
);
197
// update previous cumulative for sender
198
previousCumulatedRewardPerToken[msg.sender] = cumulativeRewardPerToken;
199
_;
200
}
201
}
Copied!
*findings based on search engine located repository, therefor making us unable to authenticate these figures

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
80
14947
2095
5087
7765
876
Comments to Code 5087/7765 = 66%
*findings based on search engine located repository, therefor making us unable to authenticate these figures

TypeScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
88
21019
3419
133
17467
483
Tests to Code 17467/7765 = 225%
*findings based on search engine located repository, therefor making us unable to authenticate these figures
Last modified 2h ago